On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43:10AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Probably the most controvertial change was to move on-disk bitmap > > indexes to the "not wanted" section, though I kept the links in case we > > change our minds. I just can't see how they would be a win with GIN and > > in-memory bitmaps. > > Yeah, I recall we discussed bitmap indexes a lot and we found there > wasn't a lot of room to use them because GIN is just too good, it seems. > Also, the patches that were developed had a number of issues. Anyone > wanting to develop bitmap indexes would probably be better off starting > from scratch.
Yes, that was my conclusion too. We have played with the on-disk bitmap idea for a long time, but GIN has gotten very good in that time. Are you suggesting I remove those links? It is kind of odd to have links to patches for features we don't want, or just keep it? > > (I don't think BRIN indexes help for on-disk bitmap use-cases, do > > they?) > > No, they don't. I expect BRIN to be very bad in a limited domain (which > is where bitmap indexes are supposed to shine), except under specific > conditions. Yes, that was my conclusion too. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
