From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Building infrastructure for B-Tree deduplication that recognizes when opclass equality is also equivalence |
Date: | 2019-08-25 20:56:13 |
Message-ID: | 2871.1566766573@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> We don't need to be able to assume that binary equality is exactly the
> same thing as opclass equality at the level of individual tuples. We
> only need to be able to assume that the user cannot observe any
> differences when they are shown output for two datums that are
> opclass-equal for any opclass that supports deduplication (i.e. cases
> like the numeric_ops case just won't work, so we shouldn't event try).
Hmm, so that would exclude the optimization for numeric, float4/float8,
and nondeterministic text collations. Anything else?
I agree that teaching opclasses to say whether this is okay is a
reasonable approach.
> Consumers of this new infrastructure probably won't be limited to the
> deduplication feature;
Indeed, we run up against this sort of thing all the time in, eg, planner
optimizations. I think some sort of "equality is precise" indicator
would be really useful for a lot of things.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-08-25 21:18:12 | Re: Building infrastructure for B-Tree deduplication that recognizes when opclass equality is also equivalence |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-25 20:49:38 | Re: mingw32 floating point diff |