Re: int8 primary keys still not using index without manual

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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