Hi! On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > I started implementing subtype_diff, and I noticed that it requires > > defining an extra function for each range type. Previously, the numeric > > types could just use a cast, which was convenient for user-defined range > > types. > > > > If you have any other ideas to make that cleaner, please let me know. > > Otherwise I'll just finish implementing subtype_diff. > I think implementing subtype_diff for each datatype is ok. We could implement some universal function based on minus operator and casting to double precision. But such solution might be unacceptable in both *predictability (operator and casting function might do not the things we expect) and performance.* I'm beginning to think that we should just allow the user to specify > their own gist_penalty function. Specifying just the subtype_diff > doesn't save much time, and it can only be limiting. Additionally, it's > harder for users to understand the purpose of the function. > If we allow user to specify own gist_penalty function, then such function should deal with: 1) GiST-specific data structures such as GISTENTRY. 2) Decomposing ranges using range_deserialize. 3) Inifinities, which we could handle in general penalty functions. Thats why I prefere to implement subtype_diff. ------ With best regards, Alexander Korotkov.
