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

Re: Re: rfd: multi-key GiST index problems

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: rfd: multi-key GiST index problems
Date: 2001-05-25 09:39:43
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

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

Thanks Tom

> >    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.

Not always. If we have multi-key index and only 2nd column requires lossy
why do we need to check lossiness if select only 1st column ?
It's not a high priority, but some optimization would be fine.

> 			regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su,
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Peter KellyDate: 2001-05-25 12:42:02
Subject: DATE_PART() BUG?
Previous:From: Alexander ZagrebinDate: 2001-05-24 09:13:27
Subject: RE: bug in plpgsql???

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group