pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:58:32 +0200
Message-ID: <5321E3B8.8040809@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfds0sY4qK61jtWZwRe5DryvQJNNHN0seAHVT-ZiOqQoPHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPpHfdvftaJq7www381naLw1=4u0h+qpXgWvNhcEB9HMVywbGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E42AD0.5060600@vmware.com>
	<52E4AA3A.9000607@fuzzy.cz>
	<52E53458.2010106@vmware.com>
	<CAPpHfdticvY2+RGTxzQdrr4YSQie+vYGRDRBTuG1ZxBmjwGrOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfduivz3MOA8_o+44n_Z0P-n+WCW=K1DrH+-g3gb-cbM2aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfdtDfQ1ycU0oh650uB5ND4+OY-enbfkweGWzXryCWD4UZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfdv792ZSWt_Tk+GzzsoNwm7ZGyomfrRiF7WuFN22LUVNUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfdtSuSoZS4SwYQu4Rc8NOwDHoX3DsLGaxJF9HZ6gW0TdVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F36245.6070006@vmware.com>
	<CAPpHfdvMvEGXXUO0hpj=SU1tbVTpg1cP6kXjkyDqZpOD_9o7zQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F4E094.9040303@vmware.com>
	<CAPpHfdsMac=yQkkMi+HPN96EiCjvE1wBt9tveENq0tjti3r88w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5305CF6E.1080508@vmware.com>
	<CAPpHfdvUmurpcqQ83vWr-SKAdWzrOMxH+_XDQ-A=9bQTpjrnxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfdu18R9AG8-a_fB-eD2vpWtaydidM9TyRVFVY67R=SP7og@mail.gmail.com>
	<53208532.8090005@vmware.com>
	<CAPpHfds0sY4qK61jtWZwRe5DryvQJNNHN0seAHVT-ZiOqQoPHw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 03/12/2014 07:52 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> >
>> >* I just noticed that the dummy trueTriConsistentFn returns GIN_MAYBE,
>> >rather than GIN_TRUE. The equivalent boolean version returns 'true' without
>> >recheck. Is that a typo, or was there some reason for the discrepancy?
>> >
> Actually, there is not difference in current implementation, But I
> implemented it so that trueTriConsistentFn can correctly work
> with shimBoolConsistentFn. In this case it should return GIN_MAYBE in case
> when it have no GIN_MAYBE in the input (as analogue of setting recheck
> flag). So, it could return GIN_TRUE only if it checked that input has
> GIN_MAYBE. However, checking would be just wasting of cycles. So I end up
> with just GIN_MAYBE :-)

I don't understand that. As it is, it's inconsistent with the boolean 
trueConsistent function. trueConsistent always returns TRUE with 
recheck=false. And in GIN_SEARCH_MODE_EVERYTHING mode, there are no 
regular scan keys.

- Heikki


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (90+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <5321E3B8.8040809@vmware.com>
Permalink:  ../5321E3B8.8040809@vmware.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5321E3B8.8040809@vmware.com

 · 

reply
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: hlinnakangas@vmware.com, aekorotkov@gmail.com, tv@fuzzy.cz
  Subject: Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan
  In-Reply-To: <5321E3B8.8040809@vmware.com>

* 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