From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Who is a maintainer of GiST code ? |
Date: | 2000-12-19 00:25:38 |
Message-ID: | 2483.977185538@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> and I can't see why btree stores them (as it seems to do judging by the
> index file size) - at least it does not use it for searching for "IS
> NULL"
That's another thing that needs improvement ;-). Seems to me it should
be able to do that.
The reason why btree *has* to be able to deal with null entries is to
cope with multi-column indexes; you don't want it refusing to index a
row at all just because some of the columns are null. The others don't
currently handle multi-column indexes, so they're not really forced
to deal with that issue.
From a purely semantic point of view I'm not sure why Oleg is worried
about being able to store nulls in a GiST index ... seems like leaving
them out is OK, modulo the occasional complaint from VACUUM's
insufficiently intelligent tuple-count comparison ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | He Weiping(Laser Henry) | 2000-12-19 00:48:30 | some errors and/or bugs? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-12-19 00:04:02 | Re: Who is a maintainer of GiST code ? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-12-19 00:58:03 | Re: heap page corruption not easy |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-12-19 00:04:02 | Re: Who is a maintainer of GiST code ? |