Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:01:17PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:05:30PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > --- 1339,1356 ----
> > > > > > *recheck = false;
> > > > > > break;
> > > > > > case BoxStrategyNumberGroup:
> > > > > > ! /*
> > > > > > ! * This code repeats logic of on_ob which
> uses
> > > > > simple comparison
> > > > > > ! * rather than FP* functions.
> > > > > > ! */
> > > > > > ! query = PG_GETARG_BOX_P(1);
> > > > > > ! key = DatumGetBoxP(entry->key);
> > > > > > !
> > > > > > ! *recheck = false;
> > > > > > ! result = key->high.x >= query->low.x &&
> > > > > > ! key->low.x <=
> query->high.x &&
> > > > > > ! key->high.y >=
> query->low.y &&
> > > > > > ! key->low.y <=
> query->high.y;
> > > > >
> > > > > For leaf entries, this correctly degenerates to on_pb(). For
> internal
> > > > > entries, it must, but does not, implement box_overlap(). (The
> fuzzy
> > > > > box_overlap() would be fine.)
>
> > > It
> > > remains that the code here must somehow implement a box_overlap()-style
> > > calculation for internal pages.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, didn't understand this point. What exactly do you mean by
> > box_overlap()-style?
>
> point_ops index entries have type "box". On leaf pages, the box for each
> entry is trivial, having high == low. At leaf pages,
> gist_point_consistent()
> should implement "point <@ box" with an algorithm equivalent to on_pb();
> your
> latest code achieves that. In internal pages, the box for each entry is
> rarely trivial; it spans all points stored on the leaf page reachable
> through
> its downlink. At internal pages, gist_point_consistent() should implement
> "point <@ box" with an algorithm near-equivalent to box_overlap(). (As an
> optional deviation, it may use exact comparisons despite box_overlap()
> using
> fuzzy comparisons.) Looking at the math again, your latest code does
> achieve
> that, too. I was thrown off by your use of a different, albeit
> mathematically
> equivalent, algorithm from the one used in box_overlap(). Please don't do
> that; either use box_overlap()'s algorithm here, or change box_overlap() to
> use the shorter algorithm you have introduced. Formulating the same
> calculation differently in related code is a recipe for confusion. (Then
> again, perhaps the equivalence of the algorithms is obvious to everyone
> entitled to travel within 1 km of the geometric type implementation.)
>

I've added comment for clarifying this situation.

------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.