From: | Andrew Tipton <andrew(dot)t(dot)tipton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch: add GiST support for BOX @> POINT queries |
Date: | 2011-06-17 10:43:47 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=h_0TnFKm+HqBCs4ogjV7Xe0Z4BA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 22:16, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I reviewed the patch and worried about hard-wired magic number as
> StrategyNumber. At least you should use #define to indicate the
> number's meaning.
>
> In addition, the modified gist_box_consistent() is too dangerous;
> q_box is declared in the if block locally and is referenced, which
> pointer is passed to the outer process of the block. AFAIK if the
> local memory of each block is alive outside if block is
> platform-dependent.
>
> Isn't it worth adding new consistent function for those purposes? The
> approach in the patch as stands looks kludge to me.
Thanks for your review. Coming back to this patch after a few months'
time, I have to say it looks pretty hackish to my eyes as well. :)
I've attempted to add a new consistent function,
gist_boxpoint_consistent(), but the GiST subsystem doesn't call it --
it continues to call gist_box_consistent(). My very simple testcase
is:
CREATE TABLE test (key TEXT PRIMARY KEY, boundary BOX NOT NULL);
CREATE INDEX ON test USING gist (boundary);
INSERT INTO test VALUES ('a', '(2,2,5,5)'), ('b', '(4,4,8,8)'), ('c',
'(7,7,11,11)');
SELECT * FROM test WHERE boundary @> '(4,4)'::POINT;
Prior to my patch, this query is executed as a straightforward seqscan.
Once I add a new strategy to pg_amop.h:
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 7 s 433 783 0 ));
(603 is the BOX oid, 600 is the POINT oid, and 433 is the @> operator oid):
...the plan switches to an index scan and gist_box_consistent() is
called; at this point, the query fails to return the correct results.
But even after adding the new consistent proc to pg_proc.h:
+ DATA(insert OID = 8000 ( gist_boxpoint_consistent PGNSP PGUID 12
1 0 0 f f f t f i 5 0 16 "2281 600 23 26 2281" _null_ _null_ _null_
_null_ gist_boxpoint_consistent _null_ _null_ _null_ ));
And adding it as a new support function in pg_amproc.h:
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 1 8000 ));
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 2 2583 ));
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 3 2579 ));
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 4 2580 ));
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 5 2581 ));
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 6 2582 ));
+ DATA(insert ( 2593 603 600 7 2584 ));
...my gist_boxpoint_consistent() function still doesn't get called.
At this point I'm a bit lost -- while pg_amop.h has plenty of examples
of crosstype comparison operators for btree index methods, there are
none for GiST. Is GiST somehow a special case in this regard?
-Andrew
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
gist-box_ops-v2.patch | text/x-patch | 4.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-06-17 12:59:31 | Re: per-column generic option |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2011-06-17 10:32:07 | Re: [BUG] SSPI authentication fails on Windows when server parameter is localhost or domain name |