Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> * With the recent WAL-ization and hoped-for concurrency fixes, GiST
> is definitely superior to R-tree for practical use. I don't see the
> percentage in continuing to maintain the R-tree code indefinitely.
> By integrating the opclasses needed to replace R-tree, we can start
> down the path to deprecating and eventually removing R-tree.
I think we still have a serious problem with multicolumn indexes. As they
stand they're basically only indexes on the first column. The later columns
are not used to determine page splits.
Also, isn't rtree still substantially faster than gist? Like I think rtree is
on the order of 2x as fast as rtree_gist. Perhaps the concurrency fixes will
improve this.
--
greg