Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > seems rtree doesn't ignore NULL ?
>
> Hm, maybe not. There are explicit tests to ignore null inputs in hash
> indexes (hash/hash.c), and I'd just sort of assumed that rtree and gist
> do the same.
>
> FWIW, your example doesn't seem to provoke an error in current sources;
> but it does take quite a long time (far longer than building a btree
> index on 10000 nulls). That makes me think that indexing nulls in rtree
> might be a bad idea even if it works.
Or maybe just some optimisations done for large number of similar keys (
probabilistic page-splitting or some such ;) in btree are not done in
rtree ?
----------
Hannu
