From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is NULL not indexable? |
Date: | 2001-06-28 15:31:18 |
Message-ID: | 24411.993742278@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> You'd want to add two more strategies to represent the relationsationships.
> This is not going to be quick, that's for sure.
Yeah, it would be really tedious to do it that way, because pg_amop
entries would need to be added for every indexable datatype. This
wouldn't bother me so much for built-in datatypes, but it would also
break user-defined types that have index support --- indexing would
fail until they added entries too.
Since there isn't any real need for datatype-specific handling of NULL
searches, I'd be inclined to special-case them somehow without adding
explicit strategy numbers for them. Not sure what it would take to
do this, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Calvin Dodge | 2001-06-28 15:54:29 | Re: useability of apache, PHP, Postgres for real business apps |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-28 15:30:39 | Re: Bytea? |