Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-26 16:56:38
Message-ID: 823922.75611.qm@web29014.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> If we ever get another index type that supports ordered
> scans, it'll be time enough to worry about cases like this.

Ok

> BTW, I think you could use tuplesort_begin_index_btree() rather than
> touching _bt_mkscankey_nodata directly.

well I created my own tuplesort_begin_rawheap method (copied from:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01371.php ).
From there I call _bt_mkscankey_nodata (as tuplesort_begin_index_btree()
does), plus I set up everything else I'm going to need in tuplesort.

Another question:

why is IndexInfo.ii_Expressions a list? How can an index have more than
one expression? Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I'm not familiar with
index expressions.

I think I'm almost there (some very stupid tests pass). I'll try to submit a
patch soon to understand if I'm going in the right direction.

Leonardo

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Rijkers 2010-01-26 17:19:17 testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-01-26 16:15:36 Re: Review: listagg aggregate