| From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed new create command, CREATE OPERATOR CLASS |
| Date: | 2001-10-24 10:16:22 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.33.0110240312030.10780-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> Make me right if I mistake.
>
> When we was developing operator @@, I saw that postgres don't use index in
> select if operation has not commutator. But operator with different types in
> argument can't be commutator with itself. So I maked operator ~~ only for
> postgres can use index access for operator @@. There is no any difficulties to
> adding index support for operator ~~. The same things is with contrib/tsearch
> module.
>
> But I think that there is not any other necessity in presence ~~.
So only one of the two needs to go into pg_amop, correct? Then everything
else is fine.
Take care,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kiran Kumar Gahlot | 2001-10-24 10:17:42 | check for disk space |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2001-10-24 10:10:30 | Re: Index of a table is not used (in any case) |