On 9/19/06 5:15 AM, "Gavin Sherry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Jie Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi Heikki and all,
>>> Please find the latest bitmap index patch in the attachment. This patch is
>>> generated against the postgresql cvs head.
>> Thanks.
>> The handling of stream and hash bitmaps looks pretty complicated to me.
>> All the bitmap-related nodes have logic to handle both types slightly
>> differently. It all seems to come down to that if a subnode (or
>> amgetbitmap in a bitmap index scan node) returns a StreamBitmap, the
>> caller needs to call the subnode many times, until it returns a NULL.
>> With a HashBitmap, the caller only calls the subnode once.
>> I think amgetbitmap should be called just once per index scan, and it
>> should return either a hash bitmap or a stream bitmap. The same applies
>> to all the executor nodes that return bitmaps, they would only return a
>> single HashBitmap or StreamBitmap, and the upper node would call
>> tbm_iterate repeatedly on that.
>> StreamBitmap would contain a callback (filled by the indexam) that
>> tbm_iterate would call to fill the next TBMIterateResult.
> Right, this was the approach taken by an earlier version of the patch I
> had worked on. It was significantly uglified by the need to keep the index
> state around and to be careful about what amrescan might do behind out
> back. I will, however, introduce the idea again because it makes the code
> much cleaner and more logical, as you seem to suggest.

I will think about this approach. But I am not quite convinced that this
approach will be simpler and cleaner than the above approach. :-)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to