On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:22 AM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> Attached another one-line patch that fixes incorrect number of distances used
> in pairingheap_SpGistSearchItem_cmp():
>
> -for (i = 0; i < so->numberOfOrderBys; i++)
> +for (i = 0; i < so->numberOfNonNullOrderBys; i++)
>
>
> This cha
On 20.09.2019 0:15, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 19.09.2019 22:14, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Pushed.
Attached patch fixes premature xs_orderbynulls[] assignment. The old value
of NULL flag, not the new, should be checked before pfree()ing the old value.
Attached another one-line patch that fixes
On 19.09.2019 22:14, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Pushed.
Attached patch fixes premature xs_orderbynulls[] assignment. The old value of
NULL flag, not the new, should be checked before pfree()ing the old value.
--
Nikita Glukhov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Post
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:30 PM Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:47 PM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> > On 13.09.2019 20:17, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:23 PM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
> >
> > I have moved handling of NU
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:47 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 13.09.2019 20:17, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:23 PM Nikita Glukhov
> wrote:
>
> I have moved handling of NULL ordering keys from opclasses to the common
> SP-GiST code, but really I don't like how it is implem
On 13.09.2019 20:17, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:23 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
I have moved handling of NULL ordering keys from opclasses to the common
SP-GiST code, but really I don't like how it is implemented now. Maybe it's
worth to move handling of NULL order-by keys
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:23 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> I have moved handling of NULL ordering keys from opclasses to the common
> SP-GiST code, but really I don't like how it is implemented now. Maybe it's
> worth to move handling of NULL order-by keys to the even more higher
> level so,
> that A
On 12.09.2019 16:45, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:34 AM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 09.09.2019 22:47, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 08.09.2019 22:32, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Alexander K
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:34 AM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 09.09.2019 22:47, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>
> On 08.09.2019 22:32, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
> I'm going to push
On 09.09.2019 22:47, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
On 08.09.2019 22:32, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
I'm going to push both if no objections.
So, pushed!
Two years ago there was a simil
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:32 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 08.09.2019 22:32, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> >> I'm going to push both if no objections.
> > So, pushed!
>
> Two years ago there was a similar patch for this issue:
> http
On 08.09.2019 22:32, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
I'm going to push both if no objections.
So, pushed!
Two years ago there was a similar patch for this issue:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1499c9d0-075a-3014-d2aa-ba59121b3728%40p
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> I'm going to push both if no objections.
So, pushed!
--
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:28 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02/09/2019 07:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > NULL and '(NaN,NaN)' are swapped. It happens so, because we assume
> > distance to NULL to be Inf, while float8_cmp_internal() assumes NaN to
> > be greater than NULL. If even we would a
On 02/09/2019 07:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Andrey Borodin noticed me that results of some KNN-GIST tests are
obviously wrong and don't match results of sort node.
SELECT * FROM point_tbl ORDER BY f1 <-> '0,1';
f1
---
(10,10)
(NaN,NaN)
(0,0)
(1e-300,-1e-300)
> 2 сент. 2019 г., в 9:54, Alexander Korotkov
> написал(а):
>
> It appears to be related to implementation of comparison function in
> pairing heap used as priority queue for KNN. It used plain float
> comparison, which doesn't handle Inf and Nan values well. Attached
> patch replaced it wi
Hi!
Andrey Borodin noticed me that results of some KNN-GIST tests are
obviously wrong and don't match results of sort node.
SELECT * FROM point_tbl ORDER BY f1 <-> '0,1';
f1
---
(10,10)
(NaN,NaN)
(0,0)
(1e-300,-1e-300)
(-3,4)
(-10,0)
(-5,-12)
(5.1,34.5)
(1e+300,I
17 matches
Mail list logo
