Re: GIN fast insert

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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