On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Oleg Bartunov <[email protected]> writes:
We usually say about 200 unique values as a limit for
gist_int_ops.
That seems awfully small ... should we make gist_intbig_ops the default,
or more likely, raise the signature size of both opclasses? Even at a
crossover point of 10000 I'm not sure that many real-world apps would
bother considering gist_int_ops.
gist__int_ops doesn't uses signatures, it uses range compression, which
is not lossy, but not capacious. Perhaps, that's why we decided to use it as
sorry, it's lossy
default opclass.
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: [email protected], http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: [email protected], http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
