På onsdag 15. juni 2016 kl. 15:27:32, skrev David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com <mailto:david.g.johns...@gmail.com>>: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com <mailto:andr...@visena.com>> wrote: Hi. First; Is this the correct forum to ask questions about the Postgres Pro's new RUM-index? -general is fairly broad in scope and the authors do monitor here as far as I am aware. I'm not sure this is strictly related to that extension though, anyway.
If not, please point me to the right forum. I'm trying to do this (done with GIN): create extension if not exists btree_gin; drop table if EXISTS delivery; create tabledelivery( id BIGSERIAL primary key, fts_all TSVECTOR not null, folder_idBIGINT NOT NULL, sent TIMESTAMP not null, message varchar not null ); create index gin_idx on delivery using GIN(fts_all, folder_id); In general I'm not sure what you are so focused on multi-column indexes through this email. [snip] What index? You don't have "sent" in the one CREATE INDEX statement you specified above. So I wonder if RUM can do any better? What I don't understand is how to have "folder_id" as part of the RUM-index so that I can search inan array of folders using the index, AND have the whole result sorted by "sent"-timestamp also using the RUM-index. A bit out of my experience here...but see comment on multi-column indexes above. In the (limited) documentation sorting using timestamp is done like this: ORDER BY sent <-> '2000-01-01'::TIMESTAMP which I don't understand; Why must one specify a value here, and how does that value affect the result? You don't (I think...); <ORDER BY sent> is perfectly valid, it will use the "<=, and >=" operators in the btree operator family to perform the ordering...see comment regarding multi-column indexes. Even if you stick sent into such an index it would not (I guess it could...but your where clause doesn't filter on it so doing so seem counter-productive) be a leading column so it is unlikely that the index would be helpful in supplying tuples to the sort node in order - the sort would still have work to perform. Maybe its simple ignorance but AFAIK the sorting node never consults an index to perform its work. Where indexes come into to play is the node under the sort is able to supply its tuples in sorted order then the sort node will have nothing to do. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/indexes-ordering.html <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/indexes-ordering.html> """ In addition to simply finding the rows to be returned by a query, an index may be able to deliver them in a specific sorted order. This allows a query's ORDER BY specification to be honored without a separate sorting step. Of the index types currently supported by PostgreSQL, only B-tree can produce sorted output — the other index types return matching rows in an unspecified, implementation-dependent order. """ HTH David J. I'm focused on using *one* index for this query for this to be as efficient as possible. I'm searching thru millions of records and the user expects "millisecond-response", we're building an web-based email-system and people expect search to be fast, as GMail and other services are. No index-type can do this yet but RUM is on its way and seems promising. The reason I don't have "sent" in the (GIN) index is that I'm only using it for sorting and GIN cannot be used for sorting, which is why I'm looking into using the RUM-index; To hopefully get the best of GIN (able to index BIGINT-arrays, JSONB and tsvector) and be able to sort on timestamp (which RUM is able to do). Based on your answer it doesn't seem you are very familiar with the RUM-extention, so much of your reply doesn't really seem relevant. -- Andreas Joseph Krogh CTO / Partner - Visena AS Mobile: +47 909 56 963 andr...@visena.com <mailto:andr...@visena.com> www.visena.com <https://www.visena.com> <https://www.visena.com>
