Re: Minmax indexes

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 August 2014 14:53, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Nicolas Barbier
>> <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 2014-08-06 Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>>
>>>> So, I like blockfilter a lot. I change my vote to blockfilter ;)
>>>
>>> +1 for blockfilter, because it stresses the fact that the "physical"
>>> arrangement of rows in blocks matters for this index.
>>
>> I don't like that quite as well as summary, but I'd prefer either to
>> the current naming.
>
> Yes, "summary index" isn't good. I'm not sure where the block or the
> filter part comes in though, so -1 to "block filter", not least
> because it doesn't have a good abbreviation (bfin??).
>
> A better description would be "block range index" since we are
> indexing a range of blocks (not just one block). Perhaps a better one
> would be simply "range index", which we could abbreviate to RIN or
> BRIN.

range index might get confused with range types; block range index
seems better. I like summary, but I'm fine with block range index or
block filter index, too.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company