Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector
Date
Msg-id 77b464d5-fc4e-d329-f1e6-fc1756334dd4@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 09/11/2017 01:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangaliev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> Moreover, RUM index
>> stores positions + lexemes, so it doesn't need tsvectors for ranked
>> search. As a result, tsvector becomes a storage for
>> building indexes (indexable type), not something that should be used at
>> runtime. And the change of the format doesn't affect index creation
>> time.
> 
> RUM indexes, though, are not in core.
> 

Yeah, but I think Ildus has a point that this should not really matter
on indexed tsvectors. So the question is how realistic that benchmark
actually is. How likely are we to do queries on fts directly, not
through a GIN/GiST index? Particularly in performance-sensitive cases?


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions