On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:36 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> > Would you be comfortable writing that '012[3-5]' range as
> > '[0123, 0126)' or something similar?  What benefits do you see to
> > using a range for prefixes versus a regular expression?
> 
> Your proposed syntax would do fine, sure. Something like this is even on
> the TODO list for prefix indexing, but for the internal representation,
> as I think there might be some optimisation potential there. Meanwhile,
> it would be easy enough to accept alternative input syntax.

Interesting example of a situation where the representation can be
optimized. I suspected that this was the case, but perhaps my example
wasn't as compelling:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01842.php

This suggests that there should be some way for the user to specify
their own representation function.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

In response to

• Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous at 2010-11-01 19:36:39 from Dimitri Fontaine

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Hiroshi Inoue	Date: 2010-11-01 21:02:07
	Subject: Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0
Previous:	From: Greg Stark	Date: 2010-11-01 20:32:18
	Subject: Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy