On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43:10AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Probably the most controvertial change was to move on-disk bitmap
> > indexes to the "not wanted" section, though I kept the links in case we
> > change our minds.  I just can't see how they would be a win with GIN and
> > in-memory bitmaps.
> Yeah, I recall we discussed bitmap indexes a lot and we found there
> wasn't a lot of room to use them because GIN is just too good, it seems.
> Also, the patches that were developed had a number of issues.  Anyone
> wanting to develop bitmap indexes would probably be better off starting
> from scratch.

Yes, that was my conclusion too.  We have played with the on-disk bitmap
idea for a long time, but GIN has gotten very good in that time.

Are you suggesting I remove those links?  It is kind of odd to have
links to patches for features we don't want, or just keep it?

> > (I don't think BRIN indexes help for on-disk bitmap use-cases, do
> > they?)
> No, they don't.  I expect BRIN to be very bad in a limited domain (which
> is where bitmap indexes are supposed to shine), except under specific
> conditions.

Yes, that was my conclusion too.  Thanks.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to