From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BRIN minmax multi - incorrect distance for infinite timestamp/date |
Date: | 2023-10-13 12:17:30 |
Message-ID: | 75de1895-3bd9-242e-cf13-3f5b0281e676@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/13/23 14:04, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 11:44, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/23 11:21, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this only inefficient? Or can it also lead to wrong query results?
>>
>> I don't think it can produce incorrect results. It only affects which
>> values we "merge" into an interval when building the summaries.
>>
>
> Ah, I get it now. These "distance" support functions are only used to
> see how far apart 2 ranges are, for the purposes of the algorithm that
> merges the 2 closest ranges. So if it gets it wrong, it only leads to
> a poor choice of ranges to merge, making the query inefficient, but
> still correct.
>
Right.
> Presumably, that also makes this kind of change safe to back-patch
> (not sure if you were planning to do that?), since it will only affect
> range merging choices when inserting new values into existing indexes.
>
I do plan to backpatch this, yes. I don't think there are many people
affected by this (few people are using infinite dates/timestamps, but
maybe the overflow could be more common).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-10-13 12:20:52 | Re: [RFC] Add jit deform_counter |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2023-10-13 12:04:02 | Re: BRIN minmax multi - incorrect distance for infinite timestamp/date |