| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>, email lists <lists(at)darrenmackay(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: query not using index for descending records? |
| Date: | 2004-01-29 18:40:55 |
| Message-ID: | 25739.1075401655@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, that's what I figured. I thought it might be useful for people to
> play with though since at least for the integer/float types writing C
> versions of the comparitors is easy. I was thinking for real it'd be nice
> to be able to use the normal comparitor but invert the return value as
> necessary rather than providing two functions, but I didn't look at what
> that would take.
I think the C versions should be written to just call the "normal"
comparators and negate the result, which'll make them one-liner
boilerplate. It's just a matter of grinding out all that boilerplate ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-01-29 18:41:19 | Re: On the performance of views |
| Previous Message | Octavio Alvarez | 2004-01-29 18:40:46 | Re: LEFT JOIN on one and/or another column (thanks) |