| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: partial index |
| Date: | 2001-08-06 16:16:05 |
| Message-ID: | 21912.997114565@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> Since bid is not in an index the evaluation of usability obviously
>> should not be based on index ops ?
Actually, now that I think about it, there's no reason that the prover
couldn't try a simple equal() on a WHERE clause and predicate clause
before moving on to the btree-semantics-based tests. If the clauses
are statically identical then one implies the other, no? This would
work nicely for clauses like IS [NOT] NULL, and would give us at least a
little bit of ability to deal with non-btree operator clauses.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-06 16:19:18 | Re: user guide |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-06 16:00:40 | Re: failed: make install prefix=/foo/bar |