| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 18:49:03 |
| Message-ID: | 19638.1253040543@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> 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).
Does it behave sanely for operators that are non-commutative, such
as '>'? (I'm not even very sure that I know what "sanely" would be
in such a case.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-09-15 18:49:30 | Re: Timestamp to time_t |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-15 18:31:48 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |