| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges |
| Date: | 2011-11-29 17:09:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1322586561.24279.13.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 19:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to propose that we should add some logic to say that
> merging a new item into an existing one is forbidden if the penalty
> function returns plus-infinity for the case. If all existing items on a
> page return infinity, a new item must be added to the page (possibly
> causing a page split) instead of inserting into any existing one.
> (Of course, gistpenalty() should be fixed to return infinity, not just a
> randomly chosen large value, for the null-and-not-null case.)
This seems less important now that you've committed the flag for
"contains empty ranges".
However, it still sounds like a useful improvement to me.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-29 17:15:26 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-29 17:01:02 | Why so few built-in range types? |