The To Do wiki says not to add things to the page with discussing here.
So here are some things to discuss. Assuming the discussion is a
brief yup or nope, it seems to make sense to lump them into one email:
Vacuuming a table with a large GIN index is painfully slow, because
the index is vacuumed in logical order not physical order. Is making
a vacuum in physical order a to-do? Does this belong to vacuuming, or
to GIN indexing? Looking at the complexity of how this was done for
btree index, I would say this is far from easy. I wonder if there is
an easier way that is still good enough, for example every time you
split a page, check to see if a vacuum is in the index, and if so only
move tuples physically rightward. If the table is so active that
there is essentially always a vacuum in the index, this could lead to
bloat. But if the table is that large and active, under the current
non-physical order the vacuum would likely take approximately forever
to finish and so the bloat would be just as bad under that existing
system.
"Speed up COUNT(*)" is marked as done. While index-only-scans should
speed this up in certain cases, it is nothing compared to the speed up
that could be obtained by "use a fixed row count and a +/- count to
follow MVCC visibility rules", and that speed-up is the one people
used to MyISAM are expecting. We might not want to actually implement
the fixed row count +/- MVCC count idea, but we probably shouldn't
mark the whole thing as done because just one approach to it was
implemented.
sort_support was implemented for plain tuple sorting only, To Do is
extend to index-creation sorts (item 2 from message
<1698.1323222387@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Cheers,
Jeff
