Re: Indexing for geographic objects? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov
Subject Re: Indexing for geographic objects?
Date
Msg-id 200012090322.VAA01535@selkovjr.xnet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Indexing for geographic objects?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses index support for arrays (GiST)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: 
> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > We've done some work with GiST indices and found a little problem
> > with optimizer.
> 
> > test=# set enable_seqscan = off;
> > SET VARIABLE
> > test=# explain select * from test where s @ '1.05 .. 3.95';
> > NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:
> 
> > Index Scan using test_seg_ix on test  (cost=0.00..369.42 rows=5000 width=12)
> 
> > EXPLAIN
> > % ./bench.pl -d test -b 100  -i
> > total: 1.71 sec; number: 100; for one: 0.017 sec; found 18 docs
> 
> I'd venture that the major problem here is bogus estimated selectivities
> for rtree/gist operators.

Yes, the problem is, I didn't have the foggiest idea how to estimate
selectivity, nor I had any stats when I developed the type. Before
7.0, I had some success using selectivity estimators of another
datatype (I think that was int, but I am not sure). In 7.0, most of
those estimators were gone and I have probably chosen the wrong ones
or none at all, just so I could get it to work again. The performance
was good enough for my taste, so I have even forgotten that was an
issue.

I know, I know: 'good enough' is never good. I apoligize.

--Gene


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: CRC
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: A mb problem in PostgreSQL