From: Howard Cole <howardnews@selestial.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Tsearch2 Initial Search Speed
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:23:29 +0100
Message-ID: <48579EB1.8050403@selestial.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806171202130.3987@aragorn.flymine.org>
References: <4856A91F.1020001@selestial.com>
<200806161124.57543@hal.medialogik.com>
<485789C1.3000803@selestial.com>
<485797D4.7010201@selestial.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0806171202130.3987@aragorn.flymine.org>
> As far as I can see, that shouldn't make any difference. Both queries
> still do the bitmap heap scan, and have almost exactly the same cost.
>
> Matthew
>
You may have a point there Matthew, they both appear to do a scan on the
email table (Why?). But for whatever reason, I swear the second method
is significantly faster! If I run the new style query first, then the
original style (to_tsquery as q) then the original style still takes
longer, even with the new style cached!
Incidentally, how can I clear the cache in between queries?
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: howardnews@selestial.com
Subject: Re: Tsearch2 Initial Search Speed
In-Reply-To: <48579EB1.8050403@selestial.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