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/
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 |
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 |