Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> * With the recent WAL-ization and hoped-for concurrency fixes, GiST
>> is definitely superior to R-tree for practical use. I don't see the
>> percentage in continuing to maintain the R-tree code indefinitely.
>> By integrating the opclasses needed to replace R-tree, we can start
>> down the path to deprecating and eventually removing R-tree.
> I think we still have a serious problem with multicolumn indexes. As they
> stand they're basically only indexes on the first column. The later columns
> are not used to determine page splits.
R-tree doesn't do multicolumn at all, so this is is hardly an argument
for keeping it, is it?
> Also, isn't rtree still substantially faster than gist?
Not according to contrib/rtree_gist/bench/, though I admit I have not
bothered to reproduce the experiment.
regards, tom lane
