From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info |
Date: | 2019-01-29 05:33:03 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jLMj6xwZ_1kBXD_CAfMKPo1Hvo=HvEgqbg+va6k5DGoCQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 19:17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > * Allow a normal term to match a functional index, e.g. WHERE x =
> > 'abcdefgh' => WHERE substr(x, 1 , 5) = 'abcde' AND x = 'abcdefgh'
>
> I'm a bit confused about what you think this example means. I do
> intend to work on letting extensions define rules for extracting
> index clauses from function calls, because that's the requirement
> that PostGIS is after in the thread that started this. I don't
> know whether that would satisfy your concern, because I'm not clear
> on what your concern is.
>
To be able to extract indexable clauses where none existed before.
Hash functions assume that x = N => hash(x) = hash(N) AND x = N
so I want to be able to assume
x = K => f(x) = f(K) AND x = K
for specific f()
to allow indexable operations when we have an index on f(x) only
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Takashi Menjo | 2019-01-29 05:34:33 | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2019-01-29 05:28:57 | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |