Re: Bundle of patches

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bundle of patches
Date: 2006-12-04 20:03:37
Message-ID: 45747F19.3080506@sigaev.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> And what happens when we implement NULLS FIRST/LAST correctly? This is
> really a poor choice of representation.

If it's just appending of indexscan's it's not a problem...

>
> One thing I find questionable about this is the assumption that indexes
> can support "foo IS NULL" and "foo IS NOT NULL" searches equally
> conveniently. This is demonstrably false for, say, hash. (Hash could
> store null keys by assigning them a fixed hashcode, say 0. Then it
> would be able to handle IS NULL searches, but not IS NOT NULL, because
> it can't do full-index scans.)

Is there a guarantee that hash value of some not-null keys doesn't equal to
special hash code?

>
> the patch to do IS NULL only. But if we are going areto support both,
> we probably have to have two pg_am flags not one.

GiST isn't effective with single NOT NULL condition ... So, using two flags may
be useful.

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-12-04 22:03:01 Re: postgresql roadmap for horizontal scalability?
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2006-12-04 19:42:03 Re: Bundle of patches

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-04 22:05:06 Re: [HACKERS] Bundle of patches
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2006-12-04 19:42:03 Re: Bundle of patches