From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Kenneth Downs <ken(at)secdat(dot)com>, Harald Armin Massa <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vector type (Re: challenging constraint situation - how do I make it) |
Date: | 2006-05-26 13:20:28 |
Message-ID: | 25132.1148649628@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Except that what you want is to forbid overlap, not forbid equality.
>> This is not possible with btree-based unique indexes, because btree
>> will not like an opclass whose "equality" member is not transitive.
> With what I have in mind, both overlap and equality would violate the
> unique constraint. I don't quite see why someone'd want to forbid
> overlap but to allow equality; isn't not allowing equality the whole
> point of a unique constraint?
You're missing the point. Letting "~" represent the operator that
tests for interval-overlap, we can have
A --------------
B ------------------
C ----------------
so that A ~ B and B ~ C but not A ~ C. This is too much unlike normal
equality for a btree to work with "~" as the "equality" operator.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-26 13:25:04 | Re: Incomplete dump? |
Previous Message | carlosreimer | 2006-05-26 13:16:49 | LDAP authentication |