From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: overlaps performance |
Date: | 2008-07-21 14:44:12 |
Message-ID: | 13304.1216651452@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Grzegorz Jakiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> writes:
>> So my question would be, why isn't postgresql using indexes for OVERLAPS,
>> and why optimizer doesn't substitute it with something like:
>>
>> (c <= a AND d > a) OR ( c >= a AND c < b)
> How would you use an index for that?
I believe you can index overlaps-like tests using GIST on an
interval-like data type --- look at contrib/seg for an example.
The reason we don't automatically translate OVERLAPS is that the spec's
definition of OVERLAPS is too weird for that to work; in particular
it demands a true result for some cases in which one of the four
endpoints is NULL, which'd be pretty hard to do with an interval-style
index.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | chris | 2008-07-21 14:45:09 | Re: Postgres-R: primary key patches |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-07-21 14:41:25 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0721 |