Jeff Davis 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
>> page re
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
Alexander Korotkov 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 range types?
> ht
>
> 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
> lea
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
> h
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 empty-r
