Re: Covering GiST indexes

Hi! > 10 марта 2019 г., в 13:39, Alexander Korotkov > написал(а): > > Pushed with some more small changes in docs. That's great, thank you! Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:58 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I made some adjustments for this patch: > * Rename tupledesc and tructTupledesc to leafTupdesc and > nonLeafTupdesc correspondingly. I think this makes things more clear. > * Some improvements to docs and comments. > * Revise commit

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:16 AM Andreas Karlsson wrote: > > On 29/01/2019 19.58, Andrey Borodin wrote: > > PFA patch without redundant checks. > > I hope it is ok that I fixed a typo and some wording in the comment, > plus re-added the btree query which I accidentally removed in my last mail. > >

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On 29/01/2019 19.58, Andrey Borodin wrote: PFA patch without redundant checks. I hope it is ok that I fixed a typo and some wording in the comment, plus re-added the btree query which I accidentally removed in my last mail. I think the current state of the patch is fine, assuming the

Re: Covering GiST indexes

> 29 янв. 2019 г., в 23:43, Andreas Karlsson написал(а): > > On 29/01/2019 18.45, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> Also, I've unified gist and r-tree syntax tests for INCLUDE. > > Why not just keep it simple? The purpose is not to test the GiST indexes, for > that we have index_including_gist.sql. >

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On 29/01/2019 18.45, Andrey Borodin wrote: Also, I've unified gist and r-tree syntax tests for INCLUDE. Why not just keep it simple? The purpose is not to test the GiST indexes, for that we have index_including_gist.sql. I propose the following. /* * 7. Check various AMs. All but btree

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Thanks! Here's new version 8 > 29 янв. 2019 г., в 22:00, Andreas Karlsson написал(а): > > * I think it is worth writing a short comment when you create truncTupdesc > about why this is done. It resulted in not so short comment, but I think it is OK. > > * Very minor thing: the diff below is

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On 29/01/2019 18.00, Andreas Karlsson wrote: Thanks for the new version of the patch. Based on my knowledge of PG this is starting to look good, and I have only three small comments below. Sorry, I missed retree in the tests. Can you fix the below to match the gist example? CREATE INDEX on

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Thanks for the new version of the patch. Based on my knowledge of PG this is starting to look good, and I have only three small comments below. I am not 100% a fan of truncTupdesc, but as long as it is well commented I think that it is fine. = Review * I think it is worth writing a short

Re: Covering GiST indexes

> 29 янв. 2019 г., в 7:32, Andreas Karlsson написал(а): > > On 1/28/19 7:26 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >>> * I am no fan of the tupdesc vs truncTupdesc separation and think that it >>> is a potential hazard, but I do not have any better suggestion right now. >> B-tree is copying tupdesc every

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On 1/28/19 7:26 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: * I am no fan of the tupdesc vs truncTupdesc separation and think that it is a potential hazard, but I do not have any better suggestion right now. B-tree is copying tupdesc every time they truncate tuple. We need tuple truncation a little more often:

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Thank you very much for reviewing the patch! > 28 янв. 2019 г., в 12:15, Andreas Karlsson написал(а): > > = Code > > * Have some minor style issues like that there should be spaces around || (in > gistcanreturn()) and ? and : (in gistFormTuple()). Fixed. > > * I do not see any need for

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On 11/26/18 5:56 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: Here's rebased version. Thanks! Here is my review. = General The features seems useful and an obvious extension of covering B-trees, and a potentially useful feature together with exclusion constraints. The patch still applies (with git apply

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Hi, Dmitry! > 26 нояб. 2018 г., в 21:20, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > Looks like this time the patch was picked up correctly, but there are some > conflicts with the current master branch: > http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_20_1615.log > Could you please rebase it one more

Re: Covering GiST indexes

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:50 AM Andrey Borodin wrote: > > Thanks, Thomas! > > > 30 июля 2018 г., в 3:58, Thomas Munro > > написал(а): > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Andrey Borodin > > wrote: > >> Thanks! The problem appeared with commit 701fd0b [0] which dropped > >> validation

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Thanks, Thomas! > 30 июля 2018 г., в 3:58, Thomas Munro > написал(а): > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> Thanks! The problem appeared with commit 701fd0b [0] which dropped >> validation rules checked in failed test. Here's the patch with fixed tests. > > Thanks.

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > Thanks! The problem appeared with commit 701fd0b [0] which dropped > validation rules checked in failed test. Here's the patch with fixed tests. Thanks. I received the attachment. Just as an FYI, something about the way your mail

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Hi, Thomas!29 июля 2018 г., в 14:28, Thomas Munro написал(а):On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote:Here is v3 version of the patch. I've fixed some comments and added some words to docs.Hi again Andrey,Cfbot reported the

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > Here is v3 version of the patch. I've fixed some comments and added some > words to docs. Hi again Andrey, Cfbot reported the following difference (twice) in the index_including_gist test: - ERROR: included columns must not intersect

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Hi! > 13 апр. 2018 г., в 17:36, Andrey Borodin написал(а): > > Here's V2, with basic set of tests. > Currently, I'm investigating what to document and more places to tests. Here is v3 version of the patch. I've fixed some comments and added some words to docs. Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Re: Covering GiST indexes

> 12 апр. 2018 г., в 17:03, Teodor Sigaev написал(а): > > Interesting work. I don't have a time now to learn deep your patch, so, add > it to next commitfest, pls. Thanks! Sure, I'll add it. > First of all I'd like to see more tests in patch, not only CREATE INDEX. Here's

Re: Covering GiST indexes

> Another thing that could be done for PostGIS geometries is just another > opclass which > stores geometries "as is" in leafs. As I know, geometries contain MBRs > inside their > own, so there is no need to store extra MBR. I think the reason why > PostGIS > doesn't have such opclass yet is

Re: Covering GiST indexes

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > I have two concerns. > First one is about INDEX_AM_RESERVED_BIT. > B-tree uses it as a base for prefix truncation (I'm not quite sure why it is > usually called suffix truncation, but this is a matter for other

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Hi, Andrey! On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > Looks like we finally have covering indexes! And that's cool! > Thank you! So I decided to create a thread to discuss covering GiST indexes. > Here's a prototype patch implementing this functionality. >

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Hello Andrey, > So I decided to create a thread to discuss covering GiST indexes. > Here's a prototype patch implementing this functionality. It is quite > small (+80 -30) and lacks tests and docs. But it creates a context. I'm glad you got interested in this area. It would be great to have

Re: Covering GiST indexes

Interesting work. I don't have a time now to learn deep your patch, so, add it to next commitfest, pls. First of all I'd like to see more tests in patch, not only CREATE INDEX. Andrey Borodin wrote: Hi, hackers! Looks like we finally have covering indexes! And that's cool! So I decided to