Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GiST index performance

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GiST index performance
Date: 2010-03-15 15:58:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Was there every any conclusion on this issue?

Not really. Comments inline:

> Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>> Revisiting the thread a month back or so, I'm still investigating
>> performance problems with GiST indexes in Postgres.
>> Looking at I'd
>> like to clarify the contrib/seg issue. Contrib/seg is vulnerable to
>> pathological behaviour which is fixed by my second patch, which can be
>> viewed as complete. Contrib/cube, being multi-dimensional, is not affected
>> to any significant degree, so should not need alteration.

This issue is addressed by my patch, which AFAIK noone has reviewed. 
However, that patch was derived from a patch that I applied to bioseg, 
which is itself a derivative of seg. This patch works very well indeed, 
and gave an approximate 100 times speed improvement in the one test I ran.

So you could say that the sister patch of the one I submitted is tried and 
tested in production.

>> A second quite distinct issue is the general performance of GiST indexes
>> which is also mentioned in the old thread linked from Open Items. For
>> that, we have a test case at
>> for
>> btree_gist indexes. I have a similar example with the bioseg GiST index. I
>> have completely reimplemented the same algorithms in Java for algorithm
>> investigation and instrumentation purposes, and it runs about a hundred
>> times faster than in Postgres. I think this is a problem, and I'm willing
>> to do some investigation to try and solve it.

I have not made any progress on this issue. I think Oleg and Teodor would 
be better placed working it out. All I can say is that I implemented the 
exact same indexing algorithm in Java, and it performed 100 times faster 
than Postgres. Now, Postgres has to do a lot of additional work, like 
mapping the index onto disc, locking pages, and abstracting to plugin user 
functions, so I would expect some difference - I'm not sure 100 times is 
reasonable though. I tried to do some profiling, but couldn't see any one 
section of code that was taking too much time. Not sure what I can further 


 Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular
 expressions." Now they have two problems.                  -- Jamie Zawinski

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: VJKDate: 2010-03-15 16:37:57
Subject: Re: Deleting bytea, autovacuum, and 8.2/8.4 differences
Previous:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2010-03-15 15:40:31
Subject: Re: Is DBLINK transactional

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group