Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D33763299D for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:25:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00739-05 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:25:22 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE396322FC for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:25:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2JCPRLP025560; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:25:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Oleg Bartunov cc: Ron Mayer , Teodor Sigaev , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Extremely slow intarray index creation and inserts. In-reply-to: References: <49BFD950.5040905@cheapcomplexdevices.com> <49BFEBD3.4000006@cheapcomplexdevices.com> <1804.1237346699@sss.pgh.pa.us> <49C11D6D.8020604@cheapcomplexdevices.com> <15055.1237407686@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Oleg Bartunov message dated "Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:02:41 +0300" Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:25:26 -0400 Message-ID: <25559.1237465526@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.011 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200903/266 X-Sequence-Number: 33188 Oleg Bartunov writes: > We usually say about 200 unique values as a limit for > gist_int_ops. That seems awfully small ... should we make gist_intbig_ops the default, or more likely, raise the signature size of both opclasses? Even at a crossover point of 10000 I'm not sure that many real-world apps would bother considering gist_int_ops. regards, tom lane