Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> writes: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 17:30, Sushant Sinha <sushant...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This never happened earlier with postgres 9.0 Is there a known issue >> with Postgres 9.1? Or how to report this problem?
> What *did* change in 9.1 is that there's new GIN cost estimation in > the planner. If you do EXPLAIN ANALYZE for your queries, do the plans > differ for 9.0 or 9.1? I trolled the commit log a bit, and AFAICS the only significant GIN changes between 9.1 and reasonably late-model 9.0 are the cost estimation patch and this one: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=73912e7fbd1b52c51d914214abbec1cda64595f2 which makes me wonder if maybe the OP has a very large fraction of empty or null entries in his data. Previously those would have resulted in no insertion traffic on a GIN index, but now they do. > Another thought -- have you read about the GIN "fast updates" feature? > This existed in 9.0 too. Yeah, so it seems unlikely to be that, or at least not that by itself. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
