| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: sortsupport for text |
| Date: | 2012-06-17 18:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_X3AF8t2pEq2RaYQer5ywSVprkkoq=06HEqUiYpWsEveA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 17, 2012 5:50 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> How exactly do you plan to shoehorn that into SQL? You could invent
> some nonstandard "equivalence" operator I suppose, but what will be the
> value? We aren't going to set things up in such a way that we can't
> use hash join or hash aggregation in queries that use the regular "="
> operator.
Right, most people won't care. You may or may not want a new
Operator for equivalency. The regular operator for equality doesn't have to
and shouldn't change. It is both useful and conceptually clean to not
guarantee that a compator can be relied upon to indicate equality and not
just equivalency.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-06-17 19:27:53 | Re: Pg default's verbosity? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-17 17:49:12 | Re: REVIEW: Optimize referential integrity checks (todo item) |