|From:||Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Cc:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Attached 3rd version of the patches rebased onto the current master.
Changes from the previous version:
- Added support of INCLUDE columns to get_index_column_opclass() (1st patch).
- Added parallel kNN scan support.
- amcanorderbyop() was transformed into ammatchorderby() which takes a List of
PathKeys and checks each of them with new function match_orderbyop_pathkey()
extracted from match_pathkeys_to_index(). I think that this design can be
used in the future to support a mix of ordinary and order-by-op PathKeys,
but I am not sure.
On 09.03.2017 15:00, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:57 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
> <mailto:david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>> wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
> On 2/16/17 11:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
> >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> writes:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> >>> <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru <mailto:a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>>
> >>>> My idea is that we need more general redesign of specifying
> ordering which
> >>>> index can produce. Ideally, we should replace amcanorder,
> amcanbackward and
> >>>> amcanorderbyop with single callback. Such callback should
> take a list of
> >>>> pathkeys and return number of leading pathkeys index could
> satisfy (with
> >>>> corresponding information for index scan). I'm not sure that
> other hackers
> >>>> would agree with such design, but I'm very convinced that we
> need something
> >>>> of this level of extendability. Otherwise we would have to
> hack our planner
> >>>> <-> index_access_method interface each time we decide to
> cover another index
> >>>> produced ordering.
> >>> Yeah. I'm not sure if that's exactly the right idea. But it
> >>> like we need something.
> >> That's definitely not exactly the right idea, because using it
> >> require the core planner to play twenty-questions trying to
> guess which
> >> pathkeys the index can satisfy. ("Can you satisfy some prefix
> of this
> >> pathkey list? How about that one?") It could be sensible to
> have a
> >> callback that's called once per index and hands back a list of
> >> lists that represent interesting orders the index could
> produce, which
> >> could be informed by looking aside at the PlannerInfo contents
> to see
> >> what is likely to be relevant to the query.
> >> But even so, I'm not convinced that that is a better design or more
> >> maintainable than the current approach. I fear that it will
> lead to
> >> duplicating substantial amounts of code and knowledge into each
> index AM,
> >> which is not an improvement; and if anything, that increases
> the risk of
> >> breaking every index AM anytime you want to introduce some
> >> new capability in the area. Now that it's actually practical
> to have
> >> out-of-core index AMs, that's a bigger concern than it might
> once have
> >> been.
> > Yeah, that's all true. But I think Alexander is right that just
> > adding amcandoblah flags ad infinitum doesn't feel good either. The
> > interface isn't really arm's-length if every new thing somebody
> > to do something new requires another flag.
> >> Also see the discussion that led up to commit ed0097e4f. Users
> >> the last time we tried to make index capabilities opaque at the
> SQL level,
> >> so they're not going to like a design that tries to hide that
> >> even from the core C code.
> > Discoverability is definitely important, but first we have to figure
> > out how we're going to make it work, and then we can work out how to
> > let users see how it works.
> Reading through this thread I'm concerned that this appears to be
> a big
> change making its first appearance in the last CF. There is also the
> need for a new patch and a general consensus of how to proceed.
> Yes, refactoring of amcanorder/amcanorderbyop should be very thoughtful.
> I recommend moving this patch to 2017-07 or marking it RWF.
> I agree. Done.
> Alexander Korotkov
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2018-09-26 15:54:43||Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2018-09-26 15:30:31||Re: Online verification of checksums|