Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] has anybody else used r-tree indexes in 6.5?

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-06-21T21:40:32Z

   Jeff Hoffmann <jeff@remapcorp.com> writes:
   > Tom Lane wrote:
   >> Apparently, none of the regression tests exercise rtree indexes at all,
   >> else we'd have known there was a problem.  Adding an rtree regression test
   >> seems to be strongly indicated as well...
   
   > i noticed this when i ran the regression tests and everything came out
   > ok, but forgot to mention it.  if i recall correctly, what's actually in
   > the geometry regression test is pretty weak.  i think it only really
   > tests some of the common cases, not all of the functions.  it's probably
   > not a high priority item, though, since, judging by how long it took for
   > this bug to surface, there aren't a lot of people using the geometry
   > functions/types.
   
   That's exactly why we need a more thorough regression test.  The core
   developers aren't doing much with the geometry operations, and evidently
   neither are any of the frontline beta testers.  So, if the regression
   tests don't cover the material either, we stand a good chance of
   breaking things and not even knowing it --- which is exactly what
   happened here.
   
   It seems that you do make use of the geometry operations; perhaps
   you would be willing to work up some more-thorough regression tests?
   You're certainly better qualified to do it than I am...
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] has anybody else used r-tree indexes in 6.5?

   Jeff Hoffmann <jeff@remapcorp.com> — 1999-06-22T14:37:29Z

   Tom Lane wrote:
   
   > That's exactly why we need a more thorough regression test.  The core
   > developers aren't doing much with the geometry operations, and evidently
   > neither are any of the frontline beta testers.  So, if the regression
   > tests don't cover the material either, we stand a good chance of
   > breaking things and not even knowing it --- which is exactly what
   > happened here.
   > 
   > It seems that you do make use of the geometry operations; perhaps
   > you would be willing to work up some more-thorough regression tests?
   > You're certainly better qualified to do it than I am...
   > 
   
   well, depending on how complete you want the regression tests, this
   could be fairly easy.  after a quick look at the tests, it seems like
   the only type that is really left out is line (which i don't know if
   there are any native operators for it anyway, all i know about are the
   ones for lsegs).  just a simple select for the forgotten operators in
   with the test of other operators for each type would be an improvement. 
   i think all of the functions are covered in at least one place.  again,
   though, i think everything that i use on a regular basis is covered in
   the regression test.  so overall it's really not that bad.  except, of
   course, for the bug i uncovered.  there actually is a place where an
   rtree index is created, but nothing is every selected against it, which
   is what caused this error to go unnoticed.  i haven't looked closely
   enough at parts of the other regression tests to see if there are any
   selects where indexes come in to play, but it'd be a good idea to make
   sure indexes are actually used in the tests for all access methods (and
   op classes? - i can't really imagine when this would be a problem, but
   who knows). 
   
   i'll try updating some of the dedicated tests (box.sql, circle.sql,
   geometry.sql, lseg.sql, path.sql, polygon.sql), but i'm not sure where
   testing the rtree indexes should go.  i think other index types are
   tested in select.sql, but i'd probably put them in geometry.sql.  does
   anybody care?  is there someone that oversees the methods and
   organization of the regression tests or do people just throw in new
   tests when there's something new?
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] has anybody else used r-tree indexes in 6.5?

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-06-22T15:18:44Z

   > i'll try updating some of the dedicated tests (box.sql, circle.sql,
   > geometry.sql, lseg.sql, path.sql, polygon.sql), but i'm not sure where
   > testing the rtree indexes should go.  i think other index types are
   > tested in select.sql, but i'd probably put them in geometry.sql.  does
   > anybody care?  is there someone that oversees the methods and
   > organization of the regression tests or do people just throw in new
   > tests when there's something new?
   
   Well, Marc and I had reorganized the regression tests a couple of
   years ago, and most of the organizational changes since then have been
   done by us too (Marc handling the platform-specific stuff, and I the
   tests themselves). But new test areas have been added by others, and
   we certainly could use more contributions to existing tests,
   reorganizing them if that seems advisable.
   
   I agree with your suggestion to put rtree testing in geometry.sql, at
   least until the size of the new tests would suggest separating it into
   a new "rtree.sql" test.
   
   Go ahead and do something. We'll apply it to the tree, and if there is
   something which provokes someone else into modifying it, we'll do it
   then. But I'm sure whatever you do will be fine, since you have
   clearly already given some thought to it.
   
   Thanks...
   
                        - Thomas
   
   -- 
   Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
   South Pasadena, California