Re: Minmax indexes

David Fetter <david@fetter.org>

From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-09-30T16:29:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:17:39PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> What would it take to abstract the minmax indexes to allow maintaing
> a bounding box for points, instead of a plain min/max? Or for
> ranges. In other words, why is this restricted to b-tree operators?

If I had to guess, I'd guess, "first cut."

I take it this also occurred to you and that you believe that this
approach makes the more general case or at least further out than it
would need to be.  Am I close?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Commits

  1. Refactor per-page logic common to all redo routines to a new function.

  2. Reduce use of heavyweight locking inside hash AM.

  3. Scan the buffer pool just once, not once per fork, during relation drop.

  4. Major patch from Thomas Lockhart <Thomas.G.Lockhart@jpl.nasa.gov>