(9.1) btree_gist support for searching on "not equals"
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: patch: to_string, to_array functions
Next: [HACKERS] WIP patch: pass outer-relation Vars as parameters to indexscans
From: Itagaki Takahiro on 12 Jul 2010 04:17 (1) Exclusion constraints support for operators where "x <operator> x" is false (tiny patch) https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=307 (2) btree_gist support for searching on <> ("not equals") https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=308 Those patches should be committed at once because (2) requires (1) to work with EXCLUDE constraints. Also, (1) has no benefits without (2) because we have no use cases for <> as an index-able operator. Both patches are very simple and small, and worked as expected both "WHERE <>" and EXCLUDE constraints cases. I'd like to ask you to write additional documentation about btree_gist [1] that the module will be more useful when it is used with exclusion constraints together. Without documentation, no users find the usages. Of course the docs can be postponed if you have a plan to write docs when PERIOD types are introduced, [1] http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/btree-gist.html The patch was not applied to 9.0, but the reason was just "no time to test" [2]. We have enough time to test for 9.1, so we can apply it now! [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01874.php -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Jeff Davis on 16 Jul 2010 01:19 Hi, Thank you for the review. On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:17 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > (1) Exclusion constraints support for operators where "x <operator> x" > is false (tiny patch) > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=307 > (2) btree_gist support for searching on <> ("not equals") > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=308 > > Those patches should be committed at once because (2) requires (1) to work > with EXCLUDE constraints. Also, (1) has no benefits without (2) because we > have no use cases for <> as an index-able operator. Both patches are very > simple and small, and worked as expected both "WHERE <>" and EXCLUDE > constraints cases. It appears that Tom already committed (1). > I'd like to ask you to write additional documentation about btree_gist [1] > that the module will be more useful when it is used with exclusion > constraints together. Without documentation, no users find the usages. Good idea, new patch attached. Regards, Jeff Davis
From: Itagaki Takahiro on 20 Jul 2010 03:50 2010/7/16 Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com>: >> I'd like to ask you to write additional documentation about btree_gist [1] >> that the module will be more useful when it is used with exclusion >> constraints together. Without documentation, no users find the usages. | Example using an Exclusion Constraint to enforce the constraint | that a cage at a zoo can contain only one kind of animal: Very interesting example :-) The patch will be applied immediately. -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 1 Aug 2010 21:57 On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com> wrote: > Thank you for the review. > > On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:17 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >> (1) Exclusion constraints support for operators where "x <operator> x" >> is false (tiny patch) >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=307 >> (2) btree_gist support for searching on <> ("not equals") >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=308 >> >> Those patches should be committed at once because (2) requires (1) to work >> with EXCLUDE constraints. Also, (1) has no benefits without (2) because we >> have no use cases for <> as an index-able operator. Both patches are very >> simple and small, and worked as expected both "WHERE <>" and EXCLUDE >> constraints cases. > > It appears that Tom already committed (1). > >> I'd like to ask you to write additional documentation about btree_gist [1] >> that the module will be more useful when it is used with exclusion >> constraints together. Without documentation, no users find the usages. > > Good idea, new patch attached. It seems pretty odd to define a constant called BTNotEqualStrategyNumber in contrib/btree_gist. Shouldn't we either call this something else, or define it in access/skey.h? Considering that there seem to be some interesting gymnastics being done with BTMaxStrategyNumber, I'd vote for the former. Maybe just BtreeGistNotEqualStrategyNumber? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 2 Aug 2010 12:27
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 21:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com> wrote: >> > Thank you for the review. >> > >> > On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:17 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >> >> (1) Exclusion constraints support for operators where "x <operator> x" >> >> is false (tiny patch) >> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=307 >> >> (2) btree_gist support for searching on <> ("not equals") >> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=308 >> >> >> >> Those patches should be committed at once because (2) requires (1) to work >> >> with EXCLUDE constraints. Also, (1) has no benefits without (2) because we >> >> have no use cases for <> as an index-able operator. Both patches are very >> >> simple and small, and worked as expected both "WHERE <>" and EXCLUDE >> >> constraints cases. >> > >> > It appears that Tom already committed (1). >> > >> >> I'd like to ask you to write additional documentation about btree_gist [1] >> >> that the module will be more useful when it is used with exclusion >> >> constraints together. Without documentation, no users find the usages. >> > >> > Good idea, new patch attached. >> >> It seems pretty odd to define a constant called >> BTNotEqualStrategyNumber in contrib/btree_gist. �Shouldn't we either >> call this something else, or define it in access/skey.h? �Considering >> that there seem to be some interesting gymnastics being done with >> BTMaxStrategyNumber, I'd vote for the former. �Maybe just >> BtreeGistNotEqualStrategyNumber? > > Sounds good to me. OK, committed that way. > At some point we may be interested to add this to BTree, as well. But we > can cross that bridge when we come to it. Yeah. I was also wondering if it would be worth adding some additional regression testing to contrib/btree_gist exercising this new functionality. Thoughts? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |