On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Perhaps I'm too early with these tests, but FWIW I reran my earlier test program against three
> instances. (the patches compiled fine, and make check was without problem).
These tests results seem to be more about the pg_trgm changes than the
patch actually on this thread, unless I'm missing something. But the
executive summary seems to be that pg_trgm might need to be a bit
smarter about costing the trigram-based search, because when the
number of trigrams is really big, using the index is
counterproductive. Hopefully that's not too hard to fix; the basic
approach seems quite promising.
(I haven't actually looked at the patch on this thread yet to
understand how it fits in; the above comments are about the pg_trgm
regex stuff.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
