Tom,
This is a realistic case: everyone have Python and Java skills, but PostGis
and Haskell and Closure are rare. If we are looking for a person that has
all the skills required for a task (array[1, 15]), that is "skills <@
array[1, 15] " and not the opposite, right?
Also can you explain why " entries for "0" and "1" swamp everything else so
that the planner
doesn't know that eg "15" is really rare. " I thought that if a value is not
found in the histogram, than clearly that value is rare, correct? What am I
missing here?
I hear what you are saying about "don't keep both extremely common and
extremely rare entries in the same array", but I cannot predict the future,
so I do not know which values are going to be common next year, or two years
later. So I think it would be very difficult to follow this advice.
What do you think?
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Why-is-GIN-index-slowing-down-my-query-tp5836319p5836323.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
