Re: range_agg

On 2020-Dec-08, Alexander Korotkov wrote:

> I also found a problem in multirange types naming logic.  Consider the
> following example.
> 
> create type a_multirange AS (x float, y float);
> create type a as range(subtype=text, collation="C");
> create table tbl (x __a_multirange);
> drop type a_multirange;
> 
> If you dump this database, the dump couldn't be restored.  The
> multirange type is named __a_multirange, because the type named
> a_multirange already exists.  However, it might appear that
> a_multirange type is already deleted.  When the dump is restored, a
> multirange type is named a_multirange, and the corresponding table
> fails to be created.  The same thing doesn't happen with arrays,
> because arrays are not referenced in dumps by their internal names.
> 
> I think we probably should add an option to specify multirange type
> names while creating a range type.  Then dump can contain exact type
> names used in the database, and restore wouldn't have a names
> collision.

Hmm, good point.  I agree that a dump must preserve the name, since once
created it is user-visible.  I had not noticed this problem, but it's
obvious in retrospect.

> In general, I wonder if we can make the binary format of multiranges
> more efficient.  It seems that every function involving multiranges
> from multirange_deserialize().  I think we can make functions like
> multirange_contains_elem() much more efficient.  Multirange is
> basically an array of ranges.  So we can pack it as follows.
> 1. Typeid and rangecount
> 2. Tightly packed array of flags (1-byte for each range)
> 3. Array of indexes of boundaries (4-byte for each range).  Or even
> better we can combine offsets and lengths to be compression-friendly
> like jsonb JEntry's do.
> 4. Boundary values
> Using this format, we can implement multirange_contains_elem(),
> multirange_contains_range() without deserialization and using binary
> search.  That would be much more efficient.  What do you think?

I also agree.  I spent some time staring at the I/O code a couple of
months back but was unable to focus on it for long enough.  I don't know
JEntry's format, but I do remember that the storage format for JSONB was
widely discussed back then; it seems wise to apply similar logic or at
least similar reasoning.