Message-ID: <BLU178-DS9720D392424599507271CA55F0@phx.gbl>
From: "Laurence Parry" <greenreaper@hotmail.com>
To: <obartunov@gmail.com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <BLU178-DS1116AC5CC07E7D50A4589CA55F0@phx.gbl>
 <CAF4Au4w_th88hf9STrjATX1EW9w5xzjGXN8Mxar_E=2qc3JJcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAF4Au4w_th88hf9STrjATX1EW9w5xzjGXN8Mxar_E=2qc3JJcw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Workaround: Planner preference for tsquery filter vs. GIN index
 in fast text search
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 00:44:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

> btw, 9.4 should be wiser in case of rare+common terms,
> thanks to GIN fast scan feature.

I'll look forward to it! We have a few other GIN indexes . . .

I don't want to misrepresent my impression of Postgres performance; the only 
other case where I've made a significant improvement by tweaking was 
pre-checking a couple of tables with count(*) > 0 before using them against 
several thousand submissions (checking lists of blocked artists and keywords 
against submission details). I've been pleasantly surprised at what it can 
handle, especially after index-only scans came out.

-- 
Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry 


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance