From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fixing row comparison semantics |
Date: | 2005-12-26 12:40:33 |
Message-ID: | 20051226124032.GB12934@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 01:29:19PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Can we save current behave (with small modification) with other operator,
> like <*
>
> (1,1) <* (1,2) = true
> (1,2) <* (2,1) is NULL
> (2,3) <* (1,2) = false
>
> it's usefull for multicriterial optimalisation
That's strange. That's not just doing less-than, but also
distinguishing between equal-to and greater-than. So at the very least
you've have to choose an operator like <=>.
Seems to me you should just define your own operator on an array type
and use that. I don't think the above could use an index scan for
speeding it up so there's no point trying to treat it specially.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin Pitt | 2005-12-26 13:35:58 | Re: horology regression test failure |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2005-12-26 12:29:19 | Re: Fixing row comparison semantics |