I wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
Isn't it possible to cache signature of newitem in gtrgm_penalty
like gtrgm_consistent do this for query?
[ studies that code for awhile ... ] Ick, what a kluge.
The main problem with that code is that the cache data gets leaked at
I wrote:
So what I'm thinking we ought to do is redefine things so that
initGISTstate sets fn_mcxt to a context that has the same lifespan as
the GISTSTATE itself does. We could possibly eliminate a few retail
pfree's in the process, eg by keeping the GISTSTATE itself in that same
context.
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm, why is that patch the one posted for review, when several
better versions were already discussed? See thread starting here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg00028.php
The patch I reviewed was
On 29.09.2011 20:27, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki's second version, a more radical revision optimized for 64
bit systems, blows up on a 32 bit compile, writing off the end of
the structure. Personally, I'd be OK with sacrificing some
performance for 32 bit systems to get better performance on
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Looking at the big picture, however, the real problem with all those
makesign() calls is that they happen in the first place. They happen
when gist needs to choose which child page to place a new tuple on. It
calls the penalty
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
At every call, gtrgm_penalty() has to calculate the signature for newitem,
using makesign(). That's an enormous waste of effort, but there's currently
no way gtrgm_penalty() to avoid that. If we
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hmm. Are there any other datatypes for which the penalty function has
to duplicate effort? I'm disinclined to fool with this if pg_trgm is
the only example ... but if it's not, maybe we should do something
about that
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
At every call, gtrgm_penalty() has to calculate the signature for newitem,
using makesign(). That's an enormous waste of effort, but there's currently
This is a review of the patch at this CF location:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=598
as posted here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4e04c099.3020...@enterprisedb.com
This patch applied cleanly and compiled without warning. It
performed correctly. Since
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
This is a review of the patch at this CF location:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=598
as posted here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4e04c099.3020...@enterprisedb.com
Hmm, why is that patch the one posted
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner writes:
This is a review of the patch at this CF location:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=598
as posted here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4e04c099.3020...@enterprisedb.com
Hmm, why is that patch the one posted for
11 matches
Mail list logo
