From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:14 -0500
Message-ID: <27610.1259336294@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B0FEF06.5050703@sigaev.ru>
References: <4B0AC9E1.5050509@sigaev.ru>
<4B0EAE0D.606@sigaev.ru>
<4B0FEF06.5050703@sigaev.ru>
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
>> Planner (find_usable_indexes function, actually) could push pathkey
>> expression into restriction clauses of index. I'm not fully satisfied
>> with this piece of code, but, may be, someone has a better idea. I
>> though about adding separate indexorderquals in IndexPath structure...
> Done, IndexScan and IndexPath have separate field to store order clauses.
Why? Isn't that redundant with the pathkey structures? We generate
enough paths during a complex planning problem that I'm not in favor
of adding unnecessary structures to them.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, teodor@sigaev.ru
Subject: Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)
In-Reply-To: <27610.1259336294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox