| From: | Lauri Pietarinen <lauri(dot)pietarinen(at)atbusiness(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |
| Date: | 2003-10-26 23:11:49 |
| Message-ID: | bnhkeh$i3t$2@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>In article <$xpsVWAvnCn$Ew5r(at)thewolery(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>, Anthony W. Youngman
><thewolery(at)nospam(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> writes
>
>
>>>Really, however you calculate it, it is an order of magnitude less
>>>than your alternative.
>>>
>>>And please don't tell me that using indexes is not fair or not in the
>>>spirit of the
>>>relational model ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>Well, it does result in data being stored multiple times ;-)
>>
>>And while it maybe doesn't affect the result that much, you wanted the
>>value? Where has that come from? What if the price changed half way
>>through the period you're calculating? :-) You've failed to answer your
>>own question, so maybe I could match you ...
>>
>>
>
>Whoops - sorry - I did notice after I wrote this that you included price
>in your index.
>
OK!
> But it does seem strange indexing on a composite field
>like that ...
>
But why does it seem strange?
regards,
Lauri
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bob Badour | 2003-10-26 23:31:41 | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |
| Previous Message | Lauri Pietarinen | 2003-10-26 23:06:27 | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |