Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree
Date
Msg-id 1345407913.20987.17.camel@jdavis
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree
Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 18:10 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>         I committed the patch now, but left out the support for
>         adjacent for now. Not because there was necessarily anything
>         wrong with that, but because I have limited time for
>         reviewing, and the rest of the patch looks ready for commit
>         now. I reworded the comments quite a lot, you might want to
>         proofread those to double-check that they're still correct.
>         I'll take a look at the adjacent-support next, as a separate
>         patch.
> 
> 
> Thanks! There is a separate patch for adjacent. I've reworked adjacent
> check in order to make it more clear.

I am taking a look at this patch now. A few quick comments:

* It looks like bounds_adjacent modifies it's by-reference arguments,
which is a little worrying to me. The lower/upper labels are flipped
back, but the inclusivities are not. Maybe just pass by value instead?

* Bounds_adjacent is sensitive to the argument order. Can't it just take
bound1 and bound2?

* I tried some larger tests and they seemed to work. I haven't reviewed
the spgist code changes in detail though.

Regards,Jeff Davis








pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Rules and WITH and LATERAL
Next
From: Joel Jacobson
Date:
Subject: Unexpected plperl difference between 8.4 and 9.1