Hello David, On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> You should produce a new version by then that addresses Alvaro's > concerns and I imagine that will require quite a bit of discussion and > work. I'll get working. I'll produce a patch with two alternate versions, one with and one without the GIN operators. On 3/7/18 5:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > so the performance was measured to see if the GIN operator was > worth it, and the numbers are pretty confusing (the test don't seem > terribly exhaustive; some numbers go up, some go down, it doesn't appear > that the tests were run more than once for each case therefore the > numbers are pretty noisy > Any ideas how to perform more exhaustive tests ? On 3/26/18 4:50 PM, Mark Rofail wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:52 AM, Andreas Karlsson > <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote: > > > > The issue I see is that > > ginqueryarrayextract() needs to make a copy of the search key but to > do > > so it needs to know the type of anyelement (to know if it needs to > > detoast, etc). But there is as far as I can tell no way to check the > > type of anyelement in this context. > > > > If there is any way to obtain a copy of the datum I would be more than > > happy to integrate the GIN operator to the patch. as I said before we need a way to obtain a copy of a datum to comply with the context of ginqueryarrayextract() Best Regards
