From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN fast insert |
Date: | 2009-02-12 18:52:45 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070902121052n36582b02jaf2b58eb1e3bd71a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>>> What did you think of the idea of simply abandoning support for
>>> conventional indexscans in GIN?
>
>> I don't like this idea because it forbids conventional indexscans even with
>> fastupdate=off.
>
> So? Barring some evidence that there's a significant performance win
> from a conventional indexscan, this is a weak argument. AFAICS the only
> significant advantage of the conventional API is to support ordered
> scans, and GIN doesn't do that anyway.
Wouldn't it force you to recheck all tuples on the page, instead of
just rechecking the one of interest?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2009-02-12 19:05:25 | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-12 18:50:27 | Re: pg_migrator and handling dropped columns |