From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Will Leinweber <will(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: query planner does not canonicalize infix operators |
Date: | 2012-03-12 17:11:59 |
Message-ID: | CAAZKuFZoaC7B9H=kO-8_RPY1EejZp7vwqDdQg+mfeOb1yZmvLA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Will Leinweber <will(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> I created an index on an hstore function, fetchval(hstore, text), however
>> when I use the -> infix operator which resolves to the very same function,
>> this index is not used. It should be used.
>
> Don't hold your breath. Create an index on the expression you intend to
> use, not random respellings of it.
Is this saying "there no need for that" or "no one is working on it,
and I certainly don't intend to", or "definitely not in the next
version" or something else entirely?
I disagreement with the former, and am in total understanding of the latter two.
--
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-12 17:15:48 | pg_filedump improvements |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-03-12 16:59:36 | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |