| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Allow GIN's extractQuery method to signal that nothing can |
| Date: | 2007-01-31 16:37:53 |
| Message-ID: | 26945.1170261473@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> amcanmulticol doesn't resolve issue, because restriction clause might present,
> but it might have not any actual values ( void tsquery, void array ) and
> semantic meaning of void query might be a 'any tuple matches'. Suggested
> gincostestimation's patch allows to prevent from index in some situations, I
> imagine, that isn't a good solution for two reason:
> - high cost doesn't guarantee an indexscan will be choosen
> - Doesn't work with anything except Const query
> But I didn't find a better place to insert it to resolve first point.
If you're going to support operators that could allow every tuple to
match, then I think you had better find a way to allow a full index scan
within GIN. Because the above does not fix the problem, it's only a
very crude band-aid; you *cannot* assume that you'll always have Consts
to look at.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-01-31 16:46:59 | Re: pgsql: Allow GIN's extractQuery method to signal that nothing can |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-01-31 16:19:50 | Re: pgsql: Allow GIN's extractQuery method to signal that nothing can |