On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 7 August 2014 14:53, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Nicolas Barbier >> <nicolas.barb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2014-08-06 Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
