On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:45:33 +0300
Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
> wrote:
>
> > Patch looks resonable, but I see some place to improvement:
> > spg_text_leaf_consistent() only needs to check with
> > text_startswith() if reconstucted value came to leaf consistent is
> > shorter than given prefix. For example, if level >= length of
> > prefix then we guarantee that fully reconstracted is matched too.
> > But do not miss that you may need to return value for index only
> > scan, consult returnData field
> >
> > In attachment rebased and minorly edited version of your patch.
>
>
> I took a look at this patch. In addition to Teodor's comments I can
> note following.
>
> * This line looks strange for me.
>
> - if (strategy > 10)
> + if (strategy > 10 && strategy !=
> RTPrefixStrategyNumber)
>
> It's not because we added strategy != RTPrefixStrategyNumber condition
> there.
> It's because we already used magic number here and now have a mix of
> magic number and macro constant in one line. Once we anyway touch
> this place, could we get rid of magic numbers here?
>
> * I'm a little concern about operator name. We're going to choose @^
> operator for
> prefix search without any preliminary discussion. However,
> personally I don't
> have better ideas :)
Teodor, Alexander, thanks for review. In new version I have added the
optimization in spgist using level variable and also got rid of magic
numbers.
About the operator it's actually ^@ (not @^ :)), I thought about it and
don't really have any idea what operator can be used instead.
Attached version 5 of the patch.
--
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
