From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Sokolov Yura aka " funny_falcon "" <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4216: Index scan goes wrong with crosstype comparison and between in one statement |
Date: | 2008-05-31 16:07:15 |
Message-ID: | 16631.1212250035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Sokolov Yura aka "funny_falcon"" <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I've created a new type - time_interval, define operators on it and
> timestamp, add those operators into OPERATOR FAMILY datetime_ops USING
> btree;
> When I query a table using BETWEEN and equality timestamp = time_interval
> (which means timestamp included in time_interval) then statement gives
> strange results.
I think your operator class is broken. You can't just invent some
randomly-defined operators that work sort of like a normal scalar
ordering and then expect btree indexes to work. In particular,
this set of operators violates the transitive law when taken together
with regular timestamp equality: for two timestamps T1 and T2 and
some interval TI, we can have T1 = TI and T2 = TI from which it
should follow that T1 = T2, yet that does not follow. But by putting
this notion of "equality" into the same opfamily as timestamp equality,
you are promising the system that it *does* follow. I didn't bother
digging through the code to see exactly where that assumption comes into
play, but that's basically what's biting you.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shantanu | 2008-05-31 17:21:35 | Re: what are the ways to avoid --- "ERROR: EXECUTE of SELECT ... INTO is not implemented yet" |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-31 15:25:36 | Re: problems compiling in 64 bits |