On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Erik Rijkers <e...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Perhaps I'm too early with these tests, but FWIW I reran my earlier test > program against three > instances. (the patches compiled fine, and make check was without problem).
These tests results seem to be more about the pg_trgm changes than the patch actually on this thread, unless I'm missing something. But the executive summary seems to be that pg_trgm might need to be a bit smarter about costing the trigram-based search, because when the number of trigrams is really big, using the index is counterproductive. Hopefully that's not too hard to fix; the basic approach seems quite promising. (I haven't actually looked at the patch on this thread yet to understand how it fits in; the above comments are about the pg_trgm regex stuff.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
