Re: [HACKERS] GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges

2011-11-29 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 19:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I'm inclined to propose that we should add some logic to say that merging a new item into an existing one is forbidden if the penalty function returns plus-infinity for the case. If all existing items on a page return infinity, a new item

Re: [HACKERS] GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges

2011-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes: On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 19:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I'm inclined to propose that we should add some logic to say that merging a new item into an existing one is forbidden if the penalty function returns plus-infinity for the case. If all existing items on a

Re: [HACKERS] GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges

2011-11-27 Thread Alexander Korotkov
The first solution that comes to mind is to make the penalty and picksplit functions forcibly segregate empty ranges from others, that is a split will never put empty ranges together with non-empty ones. Then, we can assume that a non-empty internal node doesn't represent any empty leaf

Re: [HACKERS] GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges

2011-11-27 Thread Tom Lane
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes: The first solution that comes to mind is to make the penalty and picksplit functions forcibly segregate empty ranges from others, that is a split will never put empty ranges together with non-empty ones. Have you seen my patch about GiST for

[HACKERS] GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges

2011-11-26 Thread Tom Lane
I started to wonder why the test in range_gist_consistent_int() for RANGESTRAT_CONTAINED_BY was return true (ie, search the entire index) rather than range_overlaps, which is what is tested in the comparable case in rtree_internal_consistent(). The regression tests showed me how come: an

Re: [HACKERS] GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges

2011-11-26 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: I started to wonder why the test in range_gist_consistent_int() for RANGESTRAT_CONTAINED_BY was return true (ie, search the entire index) rather than range_overlaps, which is what is tested in the comparable case in rtree_internal_consistent(). The regression tests showed me how