Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBKK0n615189
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:00:49 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBKK0LC11225;
	Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:00:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Who is a maintainer of GiST code ? 
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.1001219222315.19999H-100000@ra> 
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.1001219222315.19999H-100000@ra>
Comments: In-reply-to Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
	message dated "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:25:21 +0300"
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:00:21 -0500
Message-ID: <11222.977342421@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200012/852
X-Sequence-Number: 2381

Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> seems rtree doesn't ignore NULL ?

Hm, maybe not.  There are explicit tests to ignore null inputs in hash
indexes (hash/hash.c), and I'd just sort of assumed that rtree and gist
do the same.

FWIW, your example doesn't seem to provoke an error in current sources;
but it does take quite a long time (far longer than building a btree
index on 10000 nulls).  That makes me think that indexing nulls in rtree
might be a bad idea even if it works.

			regards, tom lane