"David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I have finally given a shot at improving the docs with the attached.
>> Comments are welcome.
> [ assorted comments ]
I adopted most of David's suggestions, whacked it around a bit further
myself, and committed. See what you think.
> âIt would be nice to give guidance on selecting a bit size for columns and
> a signature lengthâ. Yes, Wikipedia covers the topic but to get the reader
> started some discussion of the relevant trade-offs when using larger
> numbers than the default would be nice. I don't suspect using smaller the
> default values is apt to be worthwhile...
Agreed, but I didn't want to write such text myself. There's room for
further improvement here. I did add a note in the main example about
what happens with a non-default signature length, but that hardly
constitutes guidance.
BTW, it seemed to me while generating the example that the planner's
costing for bloom index searches was unduly pessimistic; maybe there's
work to do there?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
