From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:18:46 -0800
Message-ID: <4D23AAD6.8020700@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15816.1294177767@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <15190.1294175357@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<AANLkTimSzna-1tkQkWoBJUegkG4xNP3QvLR3vKtyNBA3@mail.gmail.com>
<15816.1294177767@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 1/4/11 1:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think it's really worth the trouble. The GIN code has been
> broken for these types of queries since day one, and yet we've had only
> maybe half a dozen complaints about it. Moreover there's no practical
> way to "avoid trying to use the index", since in many cases the fact
> that a query requires a full-index scan isn't determinable at plan time.
Actually, there's been a *lot* of complaining about the GIN issues.
It's just that most of that complaining doesn't reach -hackers.
The common pattern I've seen in our practice and on IRC is:
1) user has GiST indexes
2) user tries converting them to GIN
3) user gets "full index scan" errors
4) user switches back and gives up
I agree that backwards compatibility should not be a priority; it is
sufficient to tell users to reindex. For one thing, anyone who *is*
using GIN presently will have written their application code to avoid
full index scans.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases
In-Reply-To: <4D23AAD6.8020700@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox