From: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Kevin McArthur" <Kevin(at)StormTide(dot)ca>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: order by, for custom types |
Date: | 2005-11-22 15:24:21 |
Message-ID: | D0DA4807-A038-4DD5-B651-E25E11970167@pointblue.com.pl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2005-11-22, at 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin McArthur" <Kevin(at)StormTide(dot)ca> writes:
>> This is acceptable to create a unique constraint, however, we
>> cannot mark
>> the column unique, without defining btree operators, which clearly
>> are not
>> possible for sorting. Is there any way to base the operators based
>> on the
>> text representation of the type for strict equality (not to be
>> confused with
>> same or equivilent) and thus use that not as an ordering method,
>> but as a
>> simple equality for uniqueness.
>
> Translation: you do know how to define a sortable order (ie, generate
> the text version and compare); you're just too lazy to create the
> operators to do it ...
We do have WORKING < , > , etc operators, and ::text cast already.
Thing is, can I have btree and gist indexes at the same time ?
--
GJ
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called Research, would
it?" - AE
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-22 15:33:50 | Re: Practical error logging for very large COPY |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-22 14:58:44 | Re: Practical error logging for very large COPY |