Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5886C632403
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:02:05 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 12505-02
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:02:01 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com
 [209.85.200.171])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279E363237A
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:02:00 -0400 (AST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so3673114wfc.28
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.231.7 with SMTP id d7mr1296415wfh.181.1232474519037;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.10? (c-67-188-158-142.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
	[67.188.158.142])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 31sm7254535wff.3.2009.01.20.10.01.56
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <4974B002.3040202@sigaev.ru>
References: <483FD205.4090904@sigaev.ru> <486BC501.6060605@sigaev.ru>
	<27880.1215810535@sss.pgh.pa.us> <487A6E0C.3090600@sigaev.ru>
	<8993.1216843701@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4888A594.6010102@sigaev.ru>
	<490B07BA.6030109@sigaev.ru> <492F04D9.5070404@enterprisedb.com>
	<4942A137.3000502@sigaev.ru> <1229910966.2285.76.camel@jdavis>
	<49708008.8070109@sigaev.ru> <1232348905.7281.114.camel@jdavis>
	<4974B002.3040202@sigaev.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:01:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1232474489.23316.8.camel@jdavis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.125 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=2.125
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Archive-Number: 200901/1463
X-Sequence-Number: 132107

On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 19:53 +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> I see only two guaranteed solution of the problem:
> - after limit is reached, force normal index inserts. One of the motivation of 
> patch was frequent question from users: why update of whole table with GIN index 
> is so slow? So this way will not resolve this question.
> - after limit is reached, force cleanup of pending list by calling 
> gininsertcleanup. Not very good, because users sometimes will see a huge 
> execution time of simple insert. Although users who runs a huge update should be 
> satisfied.
> 
> I have difficulties in a choice of way. Seems to me, the better will be second 
> way: if user gets very long time of insertion then (auto)vacuum of his 
> installation should tweaked.
> 

I agree that the second solution sounds better to me.

With the new Visibility Map, it's more reasonable to run VACUUM more
often, so those that are inserting single tuples at a time should not
encounter the long insert time.

I'm still looking at the rest of the patch.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis