Re: Updated RUM-index and support for bigint as part of index

Andreas,

sorry for delay,
it looks like a bug to me, could you please, share your dataset with me, so
I could reproduce the behaviour.

Regards,
Oleg

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
wrote:

> På søndag 07. august 2016 kl. 08:27:06, skrev Oleg Bartunov <
> obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> [snip]
> have you considered <=| and |=> operators ? <=> in ORDER BY works like KNN.
>
>
> I don't get how these operators should work. Neither give me the expected
> results.
>
> Using <=>
>
>
> SELECT del.entity_id,
> del.folder_id,
> del.received_timestampFROM origo_email_delivery delWHERE del.fts_all @@ to_tsquery('simple', 'andreas:*&jose:*')ORDER BY '2000-01-01' :: TIMESTAMP <=> del.received_timestampLIMIT 10;
>
> entity_id | folder_id | received_timestamp
> -----------+-----------+-------------------------
> 1224278 | 1068087 | 2015-08-17 23:53:26
> 1224382 | 1068087 | 2015-08-18 03:07:55
> 1224404 | 1068087 | 2015-08-18 03:49:02
> 1505713 | 48496 | 2015-10-27 14:51:45
> 142132 | 66658 | 2012-12-03 14:14:05.488
> 122565 | 90115 | 2012-11-20 15:41:04.936
> 200744 | 66655 | 2013-01-28 21:47:44.561
> 1445927 | 888665 | 2015-09-29 00:26:56
> 123671 | 83509 | 2012-11-21 14:16:26.448
> 1129928 | 66658 | 2015-05-09 08:39:14.128
> (10 rows)
>
>
> Using <=|
>
> SELECT del.entity_id,
> del.folder_id,
> del.received_timestampFROM origo_email_delivery delWHERE del.fts_all @@ to_tsquery('simple', 'andreas:*&jose:*')ORDER BY '2000-01-01' :: TIMESTAMP <=| del.received_timestampLIMIT 10;
>
>
> entity_id | folder_id | received_timestamp
> -----------+-----------+-------------------------
> 1224278 | 1068087 | 2015-08-17 23:53:26
> 1224382 | 1068087 | 2015-08-18 03:07:55
> 1224404 | 1068087 | 2015-08-18 03:49:02
> 1505713 | 48496 | 2015-10-27 14:51:45
> 142132 | 66658 | 2012-12-03 14:14:05.488
> 122565 | 90115 | 2012-11-20 15:41:04.936
> 200744 | 66655 | 2013-01-28 21:47:44.561
> 1445927 | 888665 | 2015-09-29 00:26:56
> 123671 | 83509 | 2012-11-21 14:16:26.448
> 1129928 | 66658 | 2015-05-09 08:39:14.128
> (10 rows)
>
>
> Neither are ordered by received_timestamp
>
> Can you explain how to get ORDER BY received_timestamp DESC?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> *Andreas Joseph Krogh*
> CTO / Partner - Visena AS
> Mobile: +47 909 56 963
> andreas(at)visena(dot)com
> www.visena.com
> <https://www.visena.com>
>
>