On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > How so? In a typical application, there would not likely be very many > such rows --- we're talking about cases like documents containing zero > indexable words. In any case, the problem right now is that GIN has > significant functional limitations because it fails to make any index > entry at all for such rows. Even if there are in fact no such rows > in a particular table, it has to fail on some queries because there > *might* be such rows. There is no way to fix those limitations > unless it undertakes to have some index entry for every row. That > will take disk space, but it's *necessary*. (To adapt the old saw, > I can make this index arbitrarily small if it doesn't have to give > the right answers.)
And could you not keep it the same with a partial index? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
