The GIN changes don't seem to have progressed in some time, and some of
the most recent activity
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/50bff89a.7080...@fuzzy.cz)
suggests unconvincing test results.
Is this work considered to be a dead-end - a good idea that didn't work
out in practice? Or do
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The GIN changes don't seem to have progressed in some time, and some of
the most recent activity
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/50bff89a.7080...@fuzzy.cz)
suggests unconvincing test results.
Actually,
On 03/04/2013 01:29 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Given the activity level I would like to bounce this patch, either as
returned with feedback if you want to take another go at it post-9.3,
or as rejected if you think the idea won't go anywhere. Please let me
know how you think it
Hi!
On 22.12.2012 17:15, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I'm not saying this is a perfect benchmark, but the differences (of
querying) are pretty huge. Not sure where this difference comes from,
but it seems to be quite consistent (I usually get +-10% results, which
is negligible
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Then I've run a simple benchmarking script, and the results are not as
good as I expected, actually I'm getting much worse performance than
with the original GIN index.
The following table contains the time of loading the
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 4.12.2012 20:12, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz
mailto:t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
On 5.12.2012 09:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz
mailto:t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Thanks for bug report. It is fixed in the attached patch.
Hi,
I gave it another try and this time it went fine - I didn't get any
segfault when loading the
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
On 12/4/12 9:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
BlockNumber are stored
On 2012-12-04 10:04:03 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/4/12 9:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
trees. It uses varbyte encoding for
Hi!
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
segfaults whenever VACUUM runs (either called directly or from autovac
workers).
The patch applied cleanly against 9b3ac49e and needed a minor fix when
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of
posting
trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and
Alexander Korotkov escribió:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of
posting
trees. It uses varbyte
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 05:35:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This means to have two versions of code which deals with posting trees and
lists. For me it seems unlikely we have resources for maintenance of this.
Witness how GIN has gone with unfixed bugs for months, even though
patches
On 4.12.2012 20:12, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz
mailto:t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
segfaults whenever VACUUM runs (either called directly or from autovac
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Maybe we can mark GIN indexes as invalid after pg_upgrade somehow, so
that they require reindex in the new cluster before they can be used for
queries or index updates.
Bumping the version number in the GIN metapage would be sufficient.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 05:35:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Maybe we can mark GIN indexes as invalid after pg_upgrade somehow, so
that they require reindex in the new cluster before they can be used for
queries or index updates.
Bumping the
On 18.11.2012 22:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hackers,
Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of
posting trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and
OffsetNumber. BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally
one bit of OffsetNumber is reserved
18 matches
Mail list logo
