From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: KNNGIST next step: adjusting indexAM API |
Date: | 2010-12-01 13:49:34 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimsxO=XA1Yrei9FpZZH5McU_znWiJqo1aF=qoNY@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Lastly, I'm pretty un-thrilled with the way that the KNNGIST patch
>> implements the interface to the opclass-specific hook functions.
>> Seems like it would be cleaner to leave the Consistent function alone
>> and invent a new, separate hook function for processing ORDER BY.
>> Is there a strong reason for having both things done in one call,
>> or was that just done as a byproduct of trying to cram all the data
>> into one ScanKey array?
>
> IIRC, the goal here was to be able to benefit from KNN GiST from
> existing GiST indexes as soon as you restart the server with the new
> code compiled in. I'm not sure it's that important in the context of
> preparing 9.1. It seems that pg_upgrade already has to issue a reindex
> script for GiST indexes.
I don't think Tom was proposing to change the on-disk format, just the API.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-01 13:50:36 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-12-01 13:41:59 | Re: Proposal: First step towards Intelligent,integrated database |