> On May 27, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Instrumenting the test case suggests that getQuadrant pretty much always
>> returns 1, resulting in a worst-case unbalanced SPGiST tree. I think this
>> is related to the fact that the
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Instrumenting the test case suggests that getQuadrant pretty much always
>> returns 1, resulting in a worst-case unbalanced SPGiST tree. I think this
>> is related to the fact that the t
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Instrumenting the test case suggests that getQuadrant pretty much always
> returns 1, resulting in a worst-case unbalanced SPGiST tree. I think this
> is related to the fact that the test case inserts the values in increasing
> order, so that new
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Looks like I spoke too soon. The SP-GiST index build finished a moment
> ago. The index build took a horrifically long time for a 122 MB index,
> though.
Instrumenting the test case suggests that getQuadrant pretty much always
returns 1, resulting in a worst-case unbalan
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jonathan S. Katz
> wrote:
>> Next, see bad.sql. 1.2MM sparsely clustered rows inserted, GiST indexes
>> builds in about 30s on my machine. SP-GiST does not build at all, or at
>> least I have been compo
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> Next, see bad.sql. 1.2MM sparsely clustered rows inserted, GiST indexes
> builds in about 30s on my machine. SP-GiST does not build at all, or at
> least I have been composing this email for about 10 minutes since I kicked
> off my late
