Re: Fix for seg picksplit function
| От | Yeb Havinga |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Fix for seg picksplit function |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4CDAB4A9.6080801@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Fix for seg picksplit function (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Fix for seg picksplit function
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-11-10 15:46, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
regards,
Yeb Havinga
You're right, they are not related. I'm no longer sure it is necessary, looking at gistUserPicksplit.On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote:They are necessary and it is code untouched by this patch, and the same line occurs in other picksplit functions as well. The gbt_num_picksplit function shows that it can be avoided, by rewriting in the second loop
*left++ = sortItems[i].index;
into
v->spl_left[v->spl_nleft] = sortItems[i].index
Even though this is longer code, I prefer this variant over the shorter one.I can't understand this point. How the way of spl_left and spl_right arrays filling is related with additional FirstOffsetNumber value at the end of array, which is added by "*left = *right = FirstOffsetNumber;" line?
regards,
Yeb Havinga
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: