Message-ID: <21465bdd-5b6d-6071-aa89-ce77e6f3cdb1@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:29:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: BRIN minmax multi - incorrect distance for infinite
 timestamp/date
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <eef0ea8c-4aaa-8d0d-027f-58b1f35dd170@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAEZATCWwqTdcBC1ee1uLp+KG4XZLmxFwEGX9y9sBLUR+OdQHeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <14c205c6-fbf4-d2f2-3ea8-a7d5c5d63180@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAEZATCUNjgmTfTJnkR+DMXfRbrm+bqJuEZ-fKRJF3X4mr=o3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <75de1895-3bd9-242e-cf13-3f5b0281e676@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAEZATCV0kY0gWCLChf_x_Drh4KUEKcmBPD+cggcSju6yHaRYYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5tsrfu3k5We1tr_ANaQ_0OJc6Zf2YMB+TkmB2PQwirAPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd7fcf77-414b-b4b2-358a-0fc505255fba@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAExHW5vcq6mJJRH3wPytDataDw+HZgs-E7b=e+SXpWgo7BoTsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <31400145-6f71-a6b2-e371-048a8e1584ef@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAEZATCXSG0=NK67AhhED+25qXRAJDJqSGPOUY1zdopurTc+QjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEZATCXSG0=NK67AhhED+25qXRAJDJqSGPOUY1zdopurTc+QjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/21465bdd-5b6d-6071-aa89-ce77e6f3cdb1%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 10/18/23 12:13, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 21:25, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a couple cleaned-up patches fixing the various discussed here.
>> I've tried to always add a regression test demonstrating the issue
>> first, and then fix it in the next patch.
>>
> 
> This looks good to me.
> 
>> 2) incorrect subtraction in distance for date values (0003)
>>
>> All the problems except "2" have been discussed earlier, but this seems
>> a bit more serious than the other issues, as it's easier to hit. It
>> subtracts the values in the opposite order (smaller - larger), so the
>> distances are negated. Which means we actually merge the values from the
>> most distant ones, and thus are "guaranteed" to build very a very
>> inefficient summary.
>>
> 
> Yeah, that's not good. Amusingly this accidentally made infinite dates
> behave correctly, since they were distance 0 away from anything else,
> which was larger than all the other negative distances! But yes, that
> needed fixing properly.
> 

Right. Apparently two wrongs can make a right, after all ;-)


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company