Re: Minmax indexes

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-08-06T15:56:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 08/05/2014 04:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I have chosen to keep the name "minmax", even if the opclasses now let
>> one implement completely different things on top of it such as geometry
>> bounding boxes and bloom filters (aka bitmap indexes).  I don't see a
>> need for a rename: essentially, in PR we can just say "we have these
>> neat minmax indexes that other databases also have, but instead of just
>> being used for integer data, they can also be used for geometry, GIS and
>> bitmap indexes, so as always we're more powerful than everyone else when
>> implementing new database features".
>
> Plus we haven't come up with a better name ...

Several good suggestions have been made, like "summarizing" or
"summary" indexes and "compressed range" indexes.  I still really
dislike the present name - you might think this is a type of index
that has something to do with optimizing "min" and "max", but what it
really is is a kind of small index for a big table.  The current name
couldn't make that less clear.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


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>