| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-15 17:28:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1253035708.24770.88.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Uhh.... so what happens if I create an index constraint using the
> +(integer, integer) operator?
You can use any operator that has an index search strategy. Overlaps is
probably the most useful, but you could imagine other operators, like a
bi-directional containment operator (either LHS is contained in RHS, or
vice-versa).
You can also get creative and have a "similarity" operator that
determines whether two tuples are "too similar". As long as it is
symmetric, the feature will work.
Or just use wrap random() in an operator and see what happens ;)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-09-15 17:30:15 | Re: Timestamp to time_t |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-09-15 17:21:54 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |