On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> How so? In a typical application, there would not likely be very many
> such rows --- we're talking about cases like documents containing zero
> indexable words. In any case, the problem right now is that GIN has
> significant functional limitations because it fails to make any index
> entry at all for such rows. Even if there are in fact no such rows
> in a particular table, it has to fail on some queries because there
> *might* be such rows. There is no way to fix those limitations
> unless it undertakes to have some index entry for every row. That
> will take disk space, but it's *necessary*. (To adapt the old saw,
> I can make this index arbitrarily small if it doesn't have to give
> the right answers.)
And could you not keep it the same with a partial index?
Best,
David
