| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST |
| Date: | 2018-07-10 17:09:19 |
| Message-ID: | 13EDC8D7-A7DA-47ED-80B8-B48E01023633@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
> I'm reviewing this patch. Currently I'm trying to understand sp-gist scan deeeper, but as for now have some small notices.
I've passed through the code one more time. Here are few more questions:
1. Logic behind division of the patch into steps is described last time 2017-01-30, but ISTM actual steps have changed since than? May I ask you to write a bit about steps of the patchset?
2. The patch leaves contribs intact. Do extensions with sp-gist opclasses need to update it's behavior somehow to be used as-is? Or to support new functionality?
3. There is a patch about predicate locking in SP-GiST [0] Is this KNN patch theoretically compatible with predicate locking? Seems like it is, I just want to note that this functionality may exist.
4. Scan state now have scanStack and queue. May be it's better to name scanStack and scanQueue or stack and queue?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-07-10 17:16:11 | Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-07-10 16:52:54 | Re: Let's remove DSM_IMPL_NONE. |