From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: range test for hash index? |
Date: | 2019-09-14 12:13:38 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+f1YPZLg2zXGnhDQyjbtyoX_Q5vF=hWP3Ai253=G8cLw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:48 AM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I noticed the tests for range types do this:
>
> create table numrange_test2(nr numrange);
> create index numrange_test2_hash_idx on numrange_test2 (nr);
>
> Does that need a `using hash`? It seems like that's the intention.
>
I also think so. It appears to be added by commit 4429f6a9e3 which
has also added support for hash_range. So ideally this index should
be there to cover hash_range. I think you can once cross-check if by
default this test-file covers the case of hash_range? If not and the
change you are proposing starts covering that code, then there is a
good chance that your finding is correct.
In general, the hash_range is covered by some of the existing test,
but I don't which test. See the code coverage report here:
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c.gcov.html
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-09-14 13:05:21 | Re: pgbench - allow to create partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2019-09-14 12:04:25 | Re: [PATCH] Improve performance of NOTIFY over many databases (v2) |