From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: allow sorted builds for btree_gist |
Date: | 2024-05-18 13:30:07 |
Message-ID: | ec7cad50-5583-46d3-9ca7-41dddabcd7f3@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/18/24 02:00, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:41 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've been looking at GiST to see if there could be a good way to do
>> parallel builds - and there might be, if the opclass supports sorted
>> builds, because then we could parallelize the sort.
>>
>> But then I noticed we support this mode only for point_ops, because
>> that's the only opclass with sortsupport procedure. Which mostly makes
>> sense, because types like geometries, polygons, ... do not have a well
>> defined order.
>
> Oh, I'm excited about this for temporal tables. It seems to me that
> ranges and multiranges should have a well-defined order (assuming
> their base types do), since you can do dictionary-style ordering
> (compare the first value, then the next, then the next, etc.). Is
> there any reason not to support those? No reason not to commit these
> btree_gist functions first though. If you aren't interested in adding
> GiST sortsupport for ranges & multiranges I'm willing to do it myself;
> just let me know.
>
I believe that's pretty much what the existing patch [1] linked by
Andrey (and apparently running for a number of CFs) does.
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/3686/
> Do note that the 1.7 -> 1.8 changes have been reverted though (as part
> of my temporal work), and it looks like your patch is a bit messed up
> from that. You'll want to take 1.8 for yourself, and also your 1.9
> upgrade script is trying to add the reverted stratnum functions.
>
Yeah, I happened to branch from a slightly older master, not noticing
this is affected by the revert.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn Wallet | 2024-05-18 14:02:17 | Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL); |
Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-05-18 11:38:56 | Re: allow sorted builds for btree_gist |