Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdv4YHbQvo2VhAdCv7SAQtEP29CbRPJyF8z9a92ZQ=kFpA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:07 PM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > The last statement in the following sequence of queries: > CREATE TABLE point_tbl (f1 point); > CREATE INDEX gpointind ON point_tbl USING gist (f1); > INSERT INTO point_tbl SELECT '(0,0)'::point FROM generate_series(1, 1000) > g; > INSERT INTO point_tbl VALUES ('(1e-300,-1e-300)'::point); > produces: > ERROR: value out of range: underflow > (The error occurs inside gist_box_penalty()->box_penalty()->size_box().) > But the following sequence: > CREATE TABLE point_tbl (f1 point); > INSERT INTO point_tbl SELECT '(0,0)'::point FROM generate_series(1, 1000) > g; > INSERT INTO point_tbl VALUES ('(1e-300,-1e-300)'::point); > executes without an error. Moreover, the same index can be created > successfully after the insertion. The error is also depends on number of the > points inserted in the first step. I think losing precision in the gist penalty is generally OK. Thus, it shouldn't be a problem to round a very small value as zero. Probably, we could even tolerate overflow in the gist penalty. Should be much worse than underflow, because we might consider a very bad penalty as very good (or vise versa). But it still affects only index quality, not correctness. Any thoughts? ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: