From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: rfd: multi-key GiST index problems |
Date: | 2001-05-25 09:39:43 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.33.0105251235390.14271-100000@ra.sai.msu.su |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> indexRelation->rd_am->amsupport, cf. InitIndexStrategy.
Thanks Tom
>
> > In third example with multi-key index we
> > forced to use 'with (islossy)' for all index even if select will
> > use index by first attribute (b gist_box_ops) which is a not right
> > thing.
>
> islossy is a per-index attribute, not a per-column attribute. I don't
> think it makes sense to define it any other way. If any one of the
> columns is stored in a lossy fashion, then the index is lossy.
Not always. If we have multi-key index and only 2nd column requires lossy
why do we need to check lossiness if select only 1st column ?
It's not a high priority, but some optimization would be fine.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Kelly | 2001-05-25 12:42:02 | DATE_PART() BUG? |
Previous Message | Alexander Zagrebin | 2001-05-24 09:13:27 | RE: bug in plpgsql??? |