Re: Double sorting split patch
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Double sorting split patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdtShbuHCooS+mPndHKubXbFVu1=XUDMibqKot+j8q3gxw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Double sorting split patch (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Double sorting split patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
On 04.10.2011 15:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:Thanks, I incorporated that, and did a lot of other comment changes. I included the example you gave earlier on how the first phase of the algorithm works, in a comment. Please review, and if you have some test cases at hand, run them. I think this is ready for commit now.On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:Ok. Could you phrase that as a code comment?
Here's a version of the patch I've been working on. There's no functional
changes, just a lot of moving things around, comment changes, etc. to
hopefully make it more readable.
Thanks for your work on this patch. Patch with comment is attached.
Comments looks good, thanks. I'm going to try also some datasets from rtreeportal.org
One more thing:/* Allocate vectors for results */
nbytes = (maxoff + 2) * sizeof(OffsetNumber);
v->spl_left = (OffsetNumber *) palloc(nbytes);
v->spl_right = (OffsetNumber *) palloc(nbytes);
Why "maxoff + 2" ? Allocating a few extra bytes is obviously harmless, but I wonder if it was just a leftover from something.
It was nested from old code. This extra bytes are useless in modern versions of PostgreSQL as we found while seg picksplit patch discussion. Modern version of seg picksplit doesn't contain them:
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: