Re: Incremental sort for access method with ordered scan support (amcanorderbyop)
Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
To: Miroslav Bendik <miroslav.bendik@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-07-04T08:12:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 12:02 PM Miroslav Bendik <miroslav.bendik@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, for suggestions. > > On Sun 02. 07. 2023 at 10:18 Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1. For comment "On success, the result list is ordered by pathkeys.", I > > think it'd be more accurate if we say something like "On success, the > > result list is ordered by pathkeys or a prefix list of pathkeys." > > considering the possibility of incremental sort. > > > > 2. The comment below is not true anymore. > > > > /* > > * Note: for any failure to match, we just return NIL immediately. > > * There is no value in matching just some of the pathkeys. > > */ > > We should either remove it or change it to emphasize that we may return > > a prefix of the pathkeys for incremental sort. > > Comments are updated now. > > > BTW, would you please add the patch to the CF to not lose track of it? > > Submitted <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/4433/> The v4 patch looks good to me (maybe some cosmetic tweaks are still needed for the comments). I think it's now 'Ready for Committer'. Thanks Richard
Commits
-
Allow Incremental Sorts on GiST and SP-GiST indexes
- 625d5b3ca096 17.0 landed
-
Fix list_copy_head() with empty Lists
- 63a03aea6bc8 15.3 landed
- e35ded29566f 16.0 landed