Hi! On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:47 PM Georgios <gkokola...@protonmail.com> wrote: > In short, I think v3 of the patch looks good to change to 'RFC' status. > Given the possible costing concerns, I will refrain from changing the > status just yet, to give the opportunity to more reviewers to chime in. > If in the next few days there are no more reviews, I will update the > status to 'RFC' to move the patch forward. > > Thoughts?
I went through and revised this patch. I made the documentation statement less categorical. pg_trgm gist/gin indexes might have lower performance of equality operator search than B-tree. So, we can't claim the B-tree index is always not needed. Also, simple comparison operators are <, <=, >, >=, and they are not supported. I also have checked that btree_gist is preferred over pg_trgm gist index for equality search. Despite our gist cost estimate is quite dumb, it selects btree_gist index due to its lower size. So, this part also looks good to me. I'm going to push this if no objections. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
v4-0001-Handle-equality-operator-in-contrib-pg_trgm.patch
Description: Binary data
