Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Hi Alexander Thanks for your succinct reply. Actually I considered contributing myself for the first time to PostgreSQL and/or PostGIS. So, concluding from your explanations there's no big use case behind build-in geometric types except serving as reference implementation? I'm still torn over this

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

>> Pls. don't misunderstand my questions: They are directed to get an >> even more useful spatial data handling of PostgreSQL. I'm working with >> PostGIS since years and are interested in any work regarding spatial >> types... >> >> Can anyone report use cases or applications of these built-in geo

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > > This was already fixed for GiST. > > See following discussion > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfdvgticgniaj88vchzhboxjobuhjlm6c09q_op_u9eo...@mail.gmail.com > > and commit > > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

> This was already fixed for GiST. > See following discussion > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfdvgticgniaj88vchzhboxjobuhjlm6c09q_op_u9eo...@mail.gmail.com > and commit > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=3c29b196b0ce46662cb9bb7a1f91079fbacbcabb > "Consis

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Hi, Stefan! On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Keller wrote: > Pls. don't misunderstand my questions: They are directed to get an > even more useful spatial data handling of PostgreSQL. I'm working with > PostGIS since years and are interested in any work regarding spatial > types... > > C

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Hi, Alvaro! On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > 2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev : > > > Sync with current CVS > > > > I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only > > substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a > > diffe

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Hi Emre Pls. don't misunderstand my questions: They are directed to get an even more useful spatial data handling of PostgreSQL. I'm working with PostGIS since years and are interested in any work regarding spatial types... Can anyone report use cases or applications of these built-in geometric t

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

> Emre Hasegeli just pointed out to me that this patch introduced > box_contain_pt() and in doing so used straight C comparison (<= etc) > instead of FPlt() and friends. I would think that that's a bug and > needs to be changed -- but certainly not backpatched, because gist > indexes would/might b

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > 2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev : > > > Sync with current CVS > > > > I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only > > substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a > > different coding pattern for the box case than it do

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Robert Haas wrote: > 2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev : > > Sync with current CVS > > I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only > substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a > different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon > and circle case

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

2010/1/11 Teodor Sigaev : >> I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me.  The only >> substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a >> different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon >> and circle cases?  It's not obvious to me on the face of it wh

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon and circle cases? It's not obvious to me on the face of it why these aren't consistent. gist_cir

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev : > Sync with current CVS I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me. The only substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon and circle cases? It's not obvious to me on the

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Sync with current CVS -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ point_ops-0.5.gz Description: Unix tar archive -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

2009/11/23 Teodor Sigaev : > point   <@ box > point   <@ polygon > point   <@ circle I've always wondered why we didn't have these -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hacke

[HACKERS] point_ops for GiST

Hi! patch implements operator class for GiST over points. Supported operations: point << point point >> point point <^ point point >^ point point ~= point point <@ box box @> point point <@ polygon polygon @> point point <@ circle circle @> point -- Teodor Sigaev