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