Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: rfd: multi-key GiST index problems

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: rfd: multi-key GiST index problems
Date: 2001-05-23 17:40:45
Message-ID: 15941.990639645@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
> 1. index_getprocid (backend/access/index/idexam.c) doesn't
>    properly supports multi-keys indexes with procnum > 1
>    it's works only if either procnum=1 (B-tree, hash) or attnum=1

It looks to me like IndexSupportInitialize and index_getprocid have
different ideas about whether procnum or attnum is the major index
of the array :-(.  Change one or the other.

>    We didn't find a place where this number is stored in the index structure.

indexRelation->rd_am->amsupport, cf. InitIndexStrategy.

>    In third example with multi-key index we
>    forced to use 'with (islossy)' for all index even if select will
>    use index by first attribute (b gist_box_ops) which is a not right
>    thing.

islossy is a per-index attribute, not a per-column attribute.  I don't
think it makes sense to define it any other way.  If any one of the
columns is stored in a lossy fashion, then the index is lossy.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-05-23 19:17:31
Subject: Re: bug in plpgsql???
Previous:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2001-05-23 16:14:41
Subject: rfd: multi-key GiST index problems

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group