Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)
Date: 2009-12-30 14:59:53
Message-ID: 4B3B6AE9.1000901@sigaev.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> changes should be made. It does also need to be updated to CVS HEAD,
> as it no longer applies cleanly.

The reason was a point_ops patch, some OIDs become duplicated. Both attached
patches are synced with current CVS.
>
> I tend to feel that we should probably target this for 8.6 rather than
> 8.5. We are down to the last CommitFest, and while we don't have a
> nailed-down criterion for what is "too big" for the last CommitFest of
> a given release cycle, this is definitely a big, invasive patch. This

Is we really have rule to accept only small patches at last CommitFest? May be,
FixFest name is better for it? :)

Actually, it's easy to split patch to several ones:
- contrib/pg_trgm
- contrib/btree_gist
- knngist itself
- planner changes

And knngist depends on rbtree and point_ops patch, in summary 6 dependent
patches. Is it more comfortable?

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Attachment Content-Type Size
builtin_knngist-0.5.1.gz application/x-tar 26.8 KB
builtin_knngist-0.5.gz application/x-tar 25.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-30 15:00:41 Re: Stats for inheritance trees
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-12-30 14:57:44 Re: Can we hide data from the superadmin