Re: The future of built-in geometric data types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The future of built-in geometric data types
Date: 2004-09-02 03:52:05
Message-ID: 14857.1094097125@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> I'm pretty clueless in regard to the PostGIS situation. Will it be
> integrated with PostgreSQL in the future?

No. Wrong license.

> What are the benefits of using
> the builtin geometry types (since they don't have R-tree indexes)?

Some of 'em do. By and large, though, they are more proof-of-concept
than industrial-strength code, IMHO. PostGIS is certainly a better bet
if it does what you want.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas F.O'Connell 2004-09-02 03:56:39 Re: Understanding pg_autovacuum CPU Usage
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2004-09-02 03:33:34 Re: Can't connect to Windows port + other