On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. We rely fairly heavily on the commitfest app to track which patches need review; perhaps it would be good to add it here. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open I seem to recall thinking that this patch wasn't ready to apply for some reason, but I'm not sure why I thought that. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
