Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Index-only scans for GiST. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: Index-only scans for GiST.
Date
Msg-id CAA-aLv5FxeLY2_zFq4Bdu-W4Qjbk+AwndJ_KV4Ftq5_eeeoH1Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Index-only scans for GiST.  (Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Index-only scans for GiST.  (Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
On 11 February 2015 at 22:50, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com> wrote:
Finally there is a new version of patch (in attachments).
It provides multicolumn index-only scan for GiST indexes.

- Memory leak is fixed.
- little code cleanup
- example of performance test in attachmens
- function OIDs have debugging values (1111*) just to avoid merge conflicts while testing patch


Hi Anastasia.  Thanks for the updated patch.  I've just tried applying it to head and it doesn't appear to apply cleanly.

$ patch -p1 < ~/Downloads/indexonlyscan_gist_2.0.patch
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patching file src/backend/access/gist/gist.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1404 (offset 9 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 1434 (offset 9 lines).
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patching file src/backend/access/gist/gistget.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 227 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 243 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 293 (offset -4 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 330 (offset -4 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 365 (offset -5 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 444 (offset -27 lines).
Hunk #7 succeeded at 474 (offset -27 lines).
Hunk #8 FAILED at 518.
Hunk #9 succeeded at 507 (offset -28 lines).
Hunk #10 succeeded at 549 with fuzz 1 (offset -28 lines).
Hunk #11 FAILED at 601.
2 out of 11 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/access/gist/gistget.c.rej
...

--
Thom

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Anastasia Lubennikova
Date:
Subject: Index-only scans for GiST.
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: SSL renegotiation and other related woes