Re: [PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-06 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jan Walter wrote: > On 5.11.2013 23:19, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jan Walter wrote: > On 5.11.2013 20:51, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jan Walter wro

Re: [PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-05 Thread Jan Walter
On 5.11.2013 23:19, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jan Walter wrote: On 5.11.2013 20:51, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jan Walter wrote: Hi, I am in a need of a very robust (esp. fast in

Re: [PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-05 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jan Walter wrote: > > On 5.11.2013 20:51, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jan Walter wrote: > > Hi, > > I am in a need of a very robust (esp. fast in read, non-blocking in update)

Re: [PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-05 Thread Jan Walter
On 5.11.2013 20:51, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jan Walter wrote: Hi, I am in a need of a very robust (esp. fast in read, non-blocking in update) tree structure storage (95% trees are of depth <4, current max. i

Re: [PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-05 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jan Walter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am in a need of a very robust (esp. fast in read, non-blocking in update) >> tree structure storage (95% trees are of depth <4, current max. is 12). We >> have 10k-100k trees

Re: [PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-05 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jan Walter wrote: > Hi, > > I am in a need of a very robust (esp. fast in read, non-blocking in update) > tree structure storage (95% trees are of depth <4, current max. is 12). We > have 10k-100k trees now, millions in the future. > I made many tests, benchmarks of

[PERFORM] Trees: integer[] outperformed by ltree

2013-11-05 Thread Jan Walter
Hi, I am in a need of a very robust (esp. fast in read, non-blocking in update) tree structure storage (95% trees are of depth <4, current max. is 12). We have 10k-100k trees now, millions in the future. I made many tests, benchmarks of usual operations, and after all, materialized path ('1.5.