Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru writes:
[ spgist patch ]
I've applied this after a lot of revisions, some cosmetic (better
comments etc), some not so much (less bogus vacuum and WAL handling).
There are still a number of loose ends that need to be worked on:
* The question of whether to store
Since this was marked WIP and Tom has now kicked off two side
discussions, what I've done is tagged references to each of them as
comments to the main patch, then marked this as returned with feedback.
Surely what I do in the CF app isn't going to influence what Tom wants
to work on, so I'll
I wrote:
... the leaf tuple datatype is hard-wired to be
After another day's worth of hacking, I now understand the reason for
the above: when an index is less than a page and an incoming value would
still fit on the root page, the incoming value is simply dumped into a
leaf tuple without ever
Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru writes:
However, I now have another question: what is the point of the
allTheSame mechanism? It seems to add quite a great deal of complexity,
I thought about two options: separate code path in core to support
a-lot-of-the-same-values with minimal support in
I wrote:
... the leaf tuple datatype is hard-wired to be
the same as the indexed column's type. Why is that? It seems to me
to be both confusing and restrictive. For instance, if you'd designed
the suffix tree opclass just a little differently, it would be wanting
to store char not text in
Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru writes:
[ spgist patch ]
I've been working through this patch and fixing assorted things.
There are a couple of issues that require some discussion:
1. It took me awhile to realize it, but there are actually three
different datatypes that can be stored in an
Oleg Bartunov o...@sai.msu.su writes:
There is one annoying problem under MAC OS (Linux, FreeBSD have no problem),
we
just can't figure out how to find it, since we are not familiar with MAC OS -
it fails to restart after 'kill -9' backend, but only if sources were
compiled with -O2
We are working on the hackers documentation, hope to submit it before my
himalaya track.
Oleg
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 06.09.2011 20:34, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Here is the latest spgist patch, which has all planned
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 06.09.2011 20:34, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Here is the latest spgist patch, which has all planned features as well as
all overhead, introduced by concurrency and recovery, so performance
measurement should be realistic now.
I'm
On 06.09.2011 20:34, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Here is the latest spgist patch, which has all planned features as well as
all overhead, introduced by concurrency and recovery, so performance
measurement should be realistic now.
I'm ignoring the text suffix-tree part of this for now, because of the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Regarding the quadtree, have you compared the performance of that with
Alexander's improved split algorithm? I ran some tests using the test
harness I still had lying around from the fast GiST index
On 05.09.2011 09:39, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
I attached wrong patch in previous message, sorry ! Here is a last version.
One little detail caught my eye: In spgSplitNodeAction, you call
SpGistGetBuffer() within a critical section. That should be avoided,
SpGistGetBuffer() can easily fail if you
Here is the latest spgist patch, which has all planned features as well as
all overhead, introduced by concurrency and recovery, so performance
measurement should be realistic now.
Oleg
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
I attached wrong patch in previous message, sorry ! Here is a
On 09/06/2011 07:34 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Here is the latest spgist patch, which has all planned features as
well as
all overhead, introduced by concurrency and recovery, so performance
measurement should be realistic now.
Oleg
Sorry for not getting the might-be-obvious here, but will
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh
andr...@officenet.nowrote:
Sorry for not getting the might-be-obvious here, but will this patch
bring indexed substring-search to PG? So queries conceptually equal to
this will be possible to index: WHERE som_col @@
Attached is updated SP-GiST patch, which provides full logging support and
fixed several bugs (Thanks ALexander Korotkov for help).
Regards,
Oleg
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
This is updates SP-GiST patch, which fixed one bug and replaced test to the
locale independent one.
On
I attached wrong patch in previous message, sorry ! Here is a last version.
This is a new WIP of SP-GiST patch, which provides support for:
1. Concurrent vacuum
2. Vacuum logging
3. WAL replay
Oleg
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
This is updates SP-GiST patch, which fixed one bug and
This is updates SP-GiST patch, which fixed one bug and
replaced test to the locale independent one.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Hi there,
attached is our WIP-patch for 9.2 development source tree, which provides
implementation of SP-GiST (prototype was presented at PGCon-2011,
Hi!
Ie expect some problems in support of comparison operators for text, because
locale string comparison can have unexpected behaviour.
Let's see the example. Create table with words and add extra leading space
to some of them.
test=# create table dict(id serial, word text);
NOTICE: CREATE
Hi there,
attached is our WIP-patch for 9.2 development source tree, which provides
implementation of SP-GiST (prototype was presented at PGCon-2011, see
http://www.pgcon.org/2011/schedule/events/309.en.html and presentation
for details) as a core feature. Main differences from prototype
Hi there,
attached is WIP-patch for 9.2 development source tree, which provides
implementation of SP-GiST (prototype
was presented at PGCon-2011, see
http://www.pgcon.org/2011/schedule/events/309.en.html and presentation
for details) as a core feature. Main differences from prototype version:
21 matches
Mail list logo
