On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Was there every any conclusion on this issue?
Not really. Comments inline:
> Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>> Revisiting the thread a month back or so, I'm still investigating
>> performance problems with GiST indexes in Postgres.
>>
>> Looking at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.4_Open_Items I'd
>> like to clarify the contrib/seg issue. Contrib/seg is vulnerable to
>> pathological behaviour which is fixed by my second patch, which can be
>> viewed as complete. Contrib/cube, being multi-dimensional, is not affected
>> to any significant degree, so should not need alteration.
This issue is addressed by my patch, which AFAIK noone has reviewed.
However, that patch was derived from a patch that I applied to bioseg,
which is itself a derivative of seg. This patch works very well indeed,
and gave an approximate 100 times speed improvement in the one test I ran.
So you could say that the sister patch of the one I submitted is tried and
tested in production.
>> A second quite distinct issue is the general performance of GiST indexes
>> which is also mentioned in the old thread linked from Open Items. For
>> that, we have a test case at
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2009-04/msg00276.php for
>> btree_gist indexes. I have a similar example with the bioseg GiST index. I
>> have completely reimplemented the same algorithms in Java for algorithm
>> investigation and instrumentation purposes, and it runs about a hundred
>> times faster than in Postgres. I think this is a problem, and I'm willing
>> to do some investigation to try and solve it.
I have not made any progress on this issue. I think Oleg and Teodor would
be better placed working it out. All I can say is that I implemented the
exact same indexing algorithm in Java, and it performed 100 times faster
than Postgres. Now, Postgres has to do a lot of additional work, like
mapping the index onto disc, locking pages, and abstracting to plugin user
functions, so I would expect some difference - I'm not sure 100 times is
reasonable though. I tried to do some profiling, but couldn't see any one
section of code that was taking too much time. Not sure what I can further
do.
Matthew
--
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular
expressions." Now they have two problems. -- Jamie Zawinski
