Message-ID: <4CC33101.1000205@agliodbs.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:01:21 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Shredder/3.0.3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Subject: Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes
References: <4CAE6A92.4060703@agliodbs.com> <11352.1286506328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<AANLkTi=tYR5z+DJkTk3Ffom9vmMN95QajyOmGFQraMVb@mail.gmail.com>
	<13837.1286560056@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<AANLkTi=kQK3UFrQ5G82uMpdyy0bnS9KWSKAaovvyJNaZ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=kQK3UFrQ5G82uMpdyy0bnS9KWSKAaovvyJNaZ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/08/2010 02:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>  In any case, I would expect that GIN could actually do this quite
>>  efficiently.  What we'd probably want is a concept of a "null word",
>>  with empty indexable rows entered in the index as if they contained the
>>  null word.  So there'd be just one index entry with a posting list of
>>  however many such rows there are.

So, given the lack of objections to this idea, do we have a plan for 
fixing GIN?

-- 
                                   -- Josh Berkus
                                      PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                      http://www.pgexperts.com