On 03/02/14 02:44, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> (2) The question is whether the new patch works fine on rare words. See
> this for comparison of the patches against HEAD:
>
> http://www.fuzzy.cz/tmp/gin/3-rare-words.png
> http://www.fuzzy.cz/tmp/gin/3-rare-words-new.png
>
> and this is the comparison of the two patches:
>
> http://www.fuzzy.cz/tmp/gin/patches-rare-words.png
>
> That seems fine to me - some queries are slower, but we're talking
> about queries taking 1 or 2 ms, so the measurement error is probably
> the main cause of the differences.
>
> (3) With higher numbers of frequent words, the differences (vs. HEAD or
> the previous patch) are not that dramatic as in (1) - the new patch
> is consistently by ~20% faster.
Just thinking, this is about one algorithm is being better or frequent words
and another algorithm being better at rare words... we do have
this information (at least or tsvector) in the statistics, would
it be possible to just call the "consistent" function more often if the
statistics gives signs that it actually is a frequent word?
Jesper - heavily dependent on tsvector-searches, with both frequent and
rare words.
