Re: Get more from indices.

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Thank you, but it seems to me too simplified. You made two major
functional
> changes.

Thank you for the comments!

> One is, you put the added code for getrelation_info() out of the block for
> the condition (info->relam == BTREE_AM_OID) (though amcanorder would be
> preferable..) Anyway the reason for the place is to guarantee
'full_ordered'
> index always to be orderable. I believe the relation between them are not
> obvious. So your patch has an oppotunity to make wrong assumption for
> possible indexes which is not orderable but unique. Going on your way some
> additional works would be needed to judge an index to be orderable or not
> on checking the extensibility of pathkeys.

By checking the following equation in build_index_paths(), the updated
version of the patch guarantees that the result of an index scan is ordered:

index_is_ordered = (index->sortopfamily != NULL);

> Another is, you changed pathkeys expantion to be all-or-nothing decision.
> While this change should simplify the code slightly, it also dismisses the
> oppotunity for partially-extended pathkeys. Could you let me know the
reason
> why you did so.

At first I thought the partially-extended pathkey list that is made from
query_pathkeys, as you proposed in the original versions of the patch. But
I've started to doubt whether it's worth doing that because I think the
partially-extended pathkey list is merely one example while the original
pathkey list can be partially-extended in different ways, ie, ISTM the
partially-extended pathkey list doesn't necessarily have the optimality in
anything significant. We might be able to partially-extend the original
pathkey list optimally in something significant, but that seems useless
complexity to me. So, I modified the patch to do the all-or-nothing
decision.

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita