From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
Date: | 2014-08-07 14:19:03 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYxzMdONt4gk0V8XA2jJcD4uXSXXtWtWt7SsZP6esGS7A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 August 2014 14:53, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Nicolas Barbier
>> <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 2014-08-06 Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>>
>>>> So, I like blockfilter a lot. I change my vote to blockfilter ;)
>>>
>>> +1 for blockfilter, because it stresses the fact that the "physical"
>>> arrangement of rows in blocks matters for this index.
>>
>> I don't like that quite as well as summary, but I'd prefer either to
>> the current naming.
>
> Yes, "summary index" isn't good. I'm not sure where the block or the
> filter part comes in though, so -1 to "block filter", not least
> because it doesn't have a good abbreviation (bfin??).
Block filter would refer to the index property that selects blocks,
not tuples, and it does so through a "filter function" (for min-max,
it's a range check, but for other opclasses it could be anything).
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-08-07 14:19:19 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-08-07 14:16:23 | Re: Minmax indexes |