Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> However, what it *is* associated with is a sort ordering, and the notion
>> that btree opclasses are what define orderings is sufficiently deeply
>> wired into the system that undoing it would be a huge PITA. So unless
>> we can see a pretty clear future need for more information in this
>> category, I'm not really inclined to invent some new structure
>> altogether. I'm just wondering if anyone does see that...
> I think there's the associativity property of operators that we might
> want to have someday, in order for the planner to know some more about
> joins on A = B then on B = C, or replace with < if you will.
We already do know about that, at least in the case of =. The reason it
doesn't do transitive < deductions is not lack of information but doubt
that it's worth the cycles to try.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: tomas||Date: 2010-02-11 21:39:25|
|Subject: Re: knngist patch support|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-02-11 21:33:34|
|Subject: Re: review: More frame options in window functions|