On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:31 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Would this extra ordering not effectively be an extra tiebreaker in
> the ordering, applied before the TID? I do not know the full
> implications of that, but I believe that would not result in the
> limitations that you are mentioning
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 22:00, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > Given that the above could work, the current btree tuple ordering is
> > not optimized for opclass-equal but datum image-distinct values:
> > ordering of opclass-equal valu
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 18:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:44 PM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> > But, if the ordering of operator-class equal tuples is already
> > system-defined, could the physical ordering of index tuples in a btree
> > (with deduplication enabled fo
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Given that the above could work, the current btree tuple ordering is
> not optimized for opclass-equal but datum image-distinct values:
> ordering of opclass-equal values is currently determined only by tid,
> with as an example curre
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> Deduplication does not need to destroy semantic differences? 'equal'
> can (in my book) mean:
> - 'opclass-equal', that is the opclass returns true for an equality check
> - 'binary equal' or 'datum-equal' (? maybe incorrect term), th
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> If we wanted to fix this for numeric, we'd have to invent a new
> numeric datatype (called numeric2, say). That probably isn't as hard
> as it sounds, since it could be part of the same B-Tree operator
> family as numeric. It could also be i
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:44 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
> But, if the ordering of operator-class equal tuples is already
> system-defined, could the physical ordering of index tuples in a btree
> (with deduplication enabled for "unsafe" opclasses) be updated from
> [index_columns, tid] to [i
