Re: Implied Functional Index use

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Implied Functional Index use
Date: 2006-07-12 13:09:25
Message-ID: 200607121509.25924.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Am Dienstag, 11. Juli 2006 23:31 schrieb Tom Lane:
> We could invent some more-complex concept involving "well, this is
> equality, but there are some functions for which f(x) might differ
> from f(y) anyway" and then mark the presumably-few functions that
> could produce divergent results --- examples are sgn() for float8
> and anything dependent on dscale for numeric. This seems ugly and
> error prone however.

From a mathematical point of view, it seems cleaner to attach this property to
functions, not operators, namely, "this function preserves the following
relations". This would allow extending Simon's idea to other operators such
as > and < and possibly more mind-boggling cases with geometric operators and
such.

Admittedly, this would put a lot of additional typing load on function
authors, but perhaps it's safer that way.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2006-07-12 13:13:05 Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2006-07-12 13:07:48 Updateable views for 8.2 or 8.3?