| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)MIT(dot)EDU> |
| Cc: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Michael Nachbaur <mike(at)nachbaur(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Forcing query to use an index |
| Date: | 2003-03-04 22:33:20 |
| Message-ID: | 8864.1046817200@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)MIT(dot)EDU> writes:
> I admit using 9999-01-01 as a date gives me the willies. But it does match
> with the way the field is used and it produces nice clean index range
> lookups.
If you're willing to switch to type 'timestamp' then you could use the
special value 'infinity' (or '-infinity' when you need it to sort before
instead of after normal times).
There was some talk awhile back of making type 'date' support infinity
as well. This'd cost one day at each end of the allowable range, which
doesn't seem like a big loss. But no one's done the legwork.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | patrick | 2003-03-05 01:39:42 | upgrading from 7.1.2 to 7.3.2 |
| Previous Message | Miriam Fernández Galicia | 2003-03-04 22:24:21 | unsuscribe |