Message-ID: <4F5EFCCF.10107@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:52:47 +0800
From: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
	rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Gin index insert performance issue
References: <4F5EDE67.3040908@gmail.com> <4F5EE965.8010706@krogh.cc>
In-Reply-To: <4F5EE965.8010706@krogh.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb18030; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Thanks for the reply. Your index is much larger than mine..so I see some 
light. :)

于 2012/3/13 14:29, Jesper Krogh 写道:

> Our solution is to turn "fastupdate" off for our gin-indices.
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-createindex.html
> Can also be set with ALTER TABLE ALTER INDEX
I will check and try that.
>
> I would have preferred a "backend local" batch-update process so it
> could batch up everything from its own transaction instead of interferring
> with other transactions.
have you tested if there is any performance boot for backend 
batch-update comparing the real time updates?
>
> I would say, that we came from Xapian and the PG-index is a way better
> fit for our application. The benefits of having the fts index next to 
> all the
> other data saves a significant amount of development time in the 
> application
> both in terms of development and maintaince. (simpler, easier and more 
> manageble).
Yes, that's why I'm still looking for the improvment inside pg. This is 
really a big dev/maint saver.
>
> -- 
> Jesper
>