Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966B1632986 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:02:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78450-01 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:02:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ew0-f223.google.com (mail-ew0-f223.google.com [209.85.219.223]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD336324E2 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:02:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so620051ewy.34 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:02:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/f1u32x/eD6IdoMbA7yaBikC1ixSNZZ0yL+FqPyUdP0=; b=DV7T8FECNgFlk2XYckc2wQS4UmgkGMOBQ0V4qfaUY4GOX5Cm9eewvtFrAumUK5qO8G BW8bTgkOoEEGIji8ZIDNZc/7wkPSpfgbpn8M4qqjowBBqnIJzsFAWK4CSzAahWqSrYOO cKpwwTV3GNAyo2B1H1FLhxX+//hV76P7oxx5M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=D9z0mXm2D3i0Z2RdPkYQKKkmAD78NLc9NofUW1APeNoMCWkp10uQQzG00mv2vqOVLc k340zBGB6ERBMjNHe1et3eFKt6AAxSECz5z8H3Q3GkJQUyE+p8ssvQTEg/Zv5AU3ELAt ERthb3fKzIfdY2RHCoonU6SdjIzHfwqjnfnto= Received: by 10.213.106.199 with SMTP id y7mr5316826ebo.55.1269266554036; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (5357DA75.cable.casema.nl [83.87.218.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm2862807ewy.8.2010.03.22.07.02.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BA77876.30803@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:02:30 +0100 From: Yeb Havinga User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wakeling CC: Kenneth Marshall , Bruce Momjian , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: GiST index performance References: <201002252342.o1PNgtG07127@momjian.us> <4B9FAF4B.20907@gmail.com> <4BA0A036.1070508@gmail.com> <4BA3A6C6.80406@gmail.com> <4BA3DCA1.2010808@gmail.com> <4BA3E35A.1000905@gmail.com> <20100319211638.GI1218@it.is.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.394 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/272 X-Sequence-Number: 38097 Matthew Wakeling wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Yeb Havinga wrote: >> The gist virtual pages would then match more the original blocksizes >> that >> were used in Guttman's R-tree paper (first google result, then figure >> 4.5). >> Since the nature/characteristics of the underlying datatypes and keys >> is not >> changed, it might be that with the disk pages getting larger, gist >> indexing >> has therefore become unexpectedly inefficient. > > Yes, that is certainly a factor. For example, the page size for bioseg > which we use here is 130 entries, which is very excessive, and doesn't > allow very deep trees. On the other hand, it means that a single disc > seek performs quite a lot of work. Yeah, I only did in-memory fitting tests and wondered about increased io's. However I bet that even for bigger than ram db's, the benefit of having to fan out to less pages still outweighs the over-general non leaf nodes and might still result in less disk io's. I redid some earlier benchmarking with other datatypes with a 1kB block size and also multicolumn gist and the multicolumn variant had an ever greater benefit than the single column indexes, both equality and range scans. (Like execution times down to 20% of original). If gist is important to you, I really recommend doing a test with 1kB blocks. regards, Yeb Havinga