I wrote: > I had a look over this patch. I think this patch is interesting and very useful. > Here are my review points:
> 8. I think there are no issues in this patch. However, I have one question: > how this patch works in the case where gin_fast_limit/fast_cache_size = 0? In > this case, in my understanding, this patch inserts new entries into the pending > list temporarily and immediately moves them to the main GIN data structure using > ginInsertCleanup(). Am I right? If so, that is obviously inefficient. Sorry, There are incorrect expressions. I mean gin_fast_limit > 0 and fast_cache_size = 0. Although I asked this question, I've reconsidered about these parameters, and it seems that these parameters not only make code rather complex but are a little confusing to users. So I'd like to propose to introduce only one parameter: fast_cache_size. While users that give weight to update performance for the fast update technique set this parameter to a large value, users that give weight not only to update performance but to search performance set this parameter to a small value. What do you think about this? Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
