Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Borodin
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1
Date
Msg-id CAJEAwVEvjgRG4AJspJo2_nm267HUacYwJ3-7stHDqt0+ry5oYQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1  (Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1
List pgsql-hackers
Hi, Jeff!

Sorry for being late. Actually, I had several unsuccessful attempts to
find something wrong with the patch.
Here's my review.

in pathkey.c

ecs = (EquivalenceClass **) palloc(nClauses * sizeof(EquivalenceClass *));
scores = (int *) palloc(nClauses * sizeof(int));
range_ecs = palloc(nClauses * sizeof(bool));

Third assignment has no cast.

And I have few questions:
1. Are there any types, which could benefit from Range Merge and are
not covered by this patch?
2. Can Range Merge handle merge of different ranges? Like int4range()
&& int8range() ?

My perf test script from the previous message was broken, here's fixed
one in the attachment.

This patch implements feature, contains new tests and passes old
tests, is documented and spec compliant. I do not see any reason why
not mark it "Ready for committer".

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was:Declarative partitioning - another take)
Next
From: Erik Rijkers
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical replication - still unstable after all thesemonths