Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666EE9FB65D for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:31:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18783-10 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:31:36 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBB29FB6BC for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:31:36 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:1803:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HKkp3-0006BZ-5l; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:31:33 +0100 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HKkob-0002sw-00; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:31:05 +0100 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:31:05 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: Guillaume Smet Cc: Florian Weimer , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_trgm performance Message-ID: <20070224003105.GA11010@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: Guillaume Smet , Florian Weimer , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <82mz4k4mt7.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20070115125834.GA28248@uio.no> <1d4e0c10702231509k7ad24e2ck3a149a2e3a2899f7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1d4e0c10702231509k7ad24e2ck3a149a2e3a2899f7@mail.gmail.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.19 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200702/268 X-Sequence-Number: 23322 On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 12:09:41AM +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote: > Could you try to see if the GIN implementation of pg_trgm is faster in > your cases? I'm sorry, I can no longer remember where I needed pg_trgm. Simple testing of your patch seems to indicate that the GiN version is about 65% _slower_ (18ms vs. 30ms) for a test data set I found lying around, but I remember that on the data set I needed it, the GIST version was a lot slower than that (think 3-400ms). The 18 vs. 30ms test is a random Amarok database, on 8.2.3 (Debian). Sorry I couldn't be of more help. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/