This has been saved for the 8.3 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Jie Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 8/15/06 6:18 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECT
On 8/17/06 12:29 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jie Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This sounds good. Another problem is about ScalarArrayOpExpr support in
>> current nodeBitmapIndexscan. This will not work for stream bitmaps.
>
> Sure it will; it's just an OR.
>
Yes, it i
"Jie Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This sounds good. Another problem is about ScalarArrayOpExpr support in
> current nodeBitmapIndexscan. This will not work for stream bitmaps.
Sure it will; it's just an OR.
> We have to disable it in the optimizer.
That's not happening ;-)
On 8/17/06 5:54 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jie Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This sounds great. One thing I am concern about is that this will add the
>> dependency of node types into the access methods. If we still keep
>> nodeBitmapIndexscan and let it do the bitmap co
"Jie Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This sounds great. One thing I am concern about is that this will add the
> dependency of node types into the access methods. If we still keep
> nodeBitmapIndexscan and let it do the bitmap construction for tids returned
> by amgetmulti.
No, I'm assuming t
> It occurs to me that what tbm_begin_iterate really is is a constructor
> for a stream bitmap object that reads out the contents of a tbm bitmap
> (we need a decent name for the non-stream data structure ... maybe
> hash bitmap?). If we think of it like that then we can unify the
> ideas some mor
"Jie Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/15/06 6:18 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, as I said, I don't think there's justification for exposing a
>> bitmap index's internal data formats to the rest of the system like
>> that: it's not very future-proof and I don't see that
On 8/15/06 6:18 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the patch's present hacking on the
>>> executor intended to make it happen like this?
>
>> Not really. It reads ahe
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the patch's present hacking on the
>> executor intended to make it happen like this?
> Not really. It reads ahead on the bitmap index and passes back the bitmap
> words. The other
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One of the main reasons for the uglification of the executor in Jie's
> > original patch was that she wanted to avoid the inefficiency of
> > translating the on disk bitmap representation to the TID bitmap
> > repr
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the main reasons for the uglification of the executor in Jie's
> original patch was that she wanted to avoid the inefficiency of
> translating the on disk bitmap representation to the TID bitmap
> representation.
Offhand that seems like micro-optim
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I will post an updated patch in a few days time.
>
> OK. Do you want me to work on the discussed amgetmulti change, or would
> that just be joggling your elbow at the moment?
Yes, that would be joggling ;).
The
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will post an updated patch in a few days time.
OK. Do you want me to work on the discussed amgetmulti change, or would
that just be joggling your elbow at the moment?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadc
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Attached is an update to the patch implementing bitmap indexes Jie sent
> > last week.
>
> What's the current status of this patch ... has any work been done since
> the first of the month?
Yes. I am tidying up th
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is an update to the patch implementing bitmap indexes Jie sent
> last week.
What's the current status of this patch ... has any work been done since
the first of the month?
I suppose the patch as given here no longer applies to HEAD, because of
15 matches
Mail list logo
