Fujii Masao
masao****@gmail*****
2013年 7月 23日 (火) 02:14:30 JST
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Amit Langote <amitl****@gmail*****> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Beena Emerson <memis****@gmail*****> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Modules pg_trgm and pg_bigm cannot be installed in the same database because >> both declare the operator "gin_trgm_ops". >> >> Module pg_bigm defines two operator classes: >> 1. gin_bigm_ops >> 2. gin_trgm_ops >> >> The definition of both the operators is exactly same and the second >> "gin_trgm_ops" is defined for backward compatibility (stated in comments). >> There is no apparent need to declare gin_trgm_ops. By deleting this >> operator, we can install pg_bigm and pg_trgm in the same database. >> >> The attached patch deletes the pg_trgm_ops and also, makes necessary changes >> to upgrade to version 1.1. >> > > Thanks for this update. In fact, having these two co-exist might help > in scenarios where it would be desirable to have both a pg_trgm index > and a pg_bigm index on the same set of columns of a relation. In such > a case, I have observed in past experiments that the planner chooses > bigm index for searches involving 1-2 character strings. and trgm > index for >=3 character string searches. That is desirable for > performance reasons. > > What do others think? I agree that this is good improvement. Beena, Don't we need pg_bigm--1.0--1.1.sql? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
Fork