From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, "Craig O'Shannessy" <craig(at)ucw(dot)com(dot)au>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: int8 primary keys still not using index without manual |
Date: | 2003-11-07 17:53:40 |
Message-ID: | 280.1068227620@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I said:
> So I'm currently thinking we'd be better off not to try to eliminate
> the cross-type comparison operators. Instead we need some solution
> that is narrowly focused on the problem of making a non-indexable
> comparison indexable, by converting a comparison value of the wrong
> datatype into the right datatype locally to the indexscan plan
> generation code.
BTW, plan C would be to attack the problem head-on by allowing index
opclasses to include cross-datatype operators. This might be the
cleanest solution in the long run, but it seems likely to be a lot of
work and could force us to break existing user-defined operator classes.
I think everyone has shied away from that without much thought, but
in principle at least we could probably do it. (Say, extend pg_amop
and pg_amproc so that the datatype of the other operand becomes part
of the key.)
We are now well outside the charter of pgsql-general, so please redirect
any followup discussion to pgsql-hackers ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edwin Quijada | 2003-11-07 18:08:32 | Recovery Data Cant Be!!! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-07 17:42:45 | Re: DDL for a single schema |