David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:56:45PM -0800, adrobj wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a moderately large (~10-20GB) table:
>
> CREATE TABLE msgs (
> msg varchar(2048),
> msg_tsv tsvector,
> posted timestamp
> );
>
> CREATE INDEX msgs_i ON msgs USING gin(msg_tsv);
>
> The table never gets updated (more specifically, it gets re-created
> once a day with no updates in between).
>
> I want to run queries of the following form:
>
> SELECT msg, posted FROM msgs WHERE 'blah blah'::tsquery @@ msg_tsv
> ORDERED BY posted DESC; (with various LIMIT/OFFSET)
>
> Which obviously may get too expensive, for it will cause reading and
> sorting of all rows meeting the condition, i.e. too many disk reads.
>
> On the other hand, (as far as I understand) GIN always produces hits
> already sorted in the insertion order.
>
> So - what if I just populate my table in the order of decreasing
> 'posted', remove the "ORDERED BY" clause and just hope for the best?
> Will the correct ordering be guaranteed?
Ordering is never guaranteed without an ORDER BY, except in the time
between a CLUSTER and the first write operation after it.
Which sound like my case - there are no writes to the table!
Do I really need to CLUSTER - or just doing INSERTs in the right order would be sufficient?
> If not, are there any other ideas around?
Rather than assuming you know where problems will arise, do some
profiling and find out where they actually do :)
I agree with this maybe 98% - but not 100%. :-) Unfortunately performance can change rather unpredictably when the DB stops fitting in memory - say, 3-4 months after a production roll-out, too late for profiling experiments. :-(
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Never miss a thing.
Make Yahoo your homepage.
