On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:19:58PM -0400, John Naylor wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:05 PM Tomas Vondra
><tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> that bad. But yeah, testing and benchmarking it would be nice. Do you
>> plan to test just the minmax-multi opclass, or will you look at the
>> bloom one too?
>
>Yeah, I'll start looking at bloom next week, and I'll include it when
>I do perf testing.
>
OK. Here is a slightly improved version of the patch series, with better
commit messages and comments, and with the two patches tweaking handling
of NULL values merged into one.
As mentioned in my reply to Alvaro, I'm hoping to get the first two
parts (general improvements) committed soon, so that we can focus on the
new opclasses. I now recall why I was postponing pushing those parts
because it's primarily "just" a preparation for the new opclasses. Both
the scan keys and NULL handling tweaks are not going to help existing
opclasses very much, I think.
The NULL-handling might help a bit, but the scan key changes are mostly
irrelevant. So I'm wondering if we should even change the two existing
opclasses, instead of keeping them as they are (the code actually
supports that by checking number of arguments of the constitent
function). Opinions?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
