Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor)

On 12/13/2011 04:04 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com
> <mailto:pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> * There's a lot of code for range_gist_penalty. Rather than having
> special cases for all combinations of properties in the new an
> original,
> is it possible to use something a little simpler? Maybe just start the
> penalty at zero, and add something for each property of the predicate
> range that must be changed. The penalties added might vary, e.g.,
> if the
> original range has an infinite lower bound, changing it to have an
> infinite upper bound might be a higher penalty.
>
> I belive it's possible to make it simplier. I've coded quite
> intuitively. Probably, we should select some representive datasets in
> order to determine which logic is reasonable by tests.

That seems to be a sticking point; you mentioned before that finding
larger data sets useful for your purposes was hard.

I'm not sure where you'll find data fitting your needs here, but it
seems difficult to validate all of what you've done so far without it.
I'm going to mark this one returned and hope you can dig up something
useful to nail this down. You might also describe what it is you're
looking for better and see if anyone else has a suggestion.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us