Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdud0qwzGESyt_WNbzW3AdtRo6Wi6dYNeyh5QSd0jquHew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 11:35 PM Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> I'm going to push 0001 changing "attno >= 1" to assert.

Pushed.  Rebased patchset is attached.  I propose to limit
consideration during this commitfest to this set of 7 remaining
patches.  The rest of patches could be considered later.  I made some
minor editing in preparation to commit.  But I decided I've couple
more notes to Nikita.

 * 0003 extracts part of fields from BTScanOpaqueData struct into new
BTScanStateData struct.  However, there is a big comment regarding
BTScanOpaqueData just before definition of BTScanPosItem.  It needs to
be revised.
 * 0004 adds "knnState" field to BTScanOpaqueData in addition to
"state" field.  Wherein "knnState" might unused during knn scan if it
could be done in one direction.  This seems counter-intuitive.  Could
we rework this to have "forwardState" and "backwardState" fields
instead of "state" and "knnState"?

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength