From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ocie(at)paracel(dot)com |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Unique index using hash? |
Date: | 1998-03-17 03:02:49 |
Message-ID: | 199803170302.WAA01018@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I was playing around with my latest compile and tried to make a unique
> index on two columns, using a hash method. Both of these (more than
> one column and unique) are currently not allowed for hash indexes.
>
> I thought about this for a bit and realized that making a NESTED hash
> index (index on a and b also serves as an index on a) would be a
> trick, but allowing the unique clause should not be a problem.
>
> Therefore, I would like to try implementing unique constraints on hash
> indexes. Has this come up before? Are there any reasons not to
> support this? As far as I understand, specifying an index method is
> non standard (above and beyond standard) to begin with.
>
It is on the TODO list:
* add UNIQUE capability to non-btree indexes
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-03-17 03:20:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] patches for 6.2.1p6 |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-03-17 02:52:04 | Re: [QUESTIONS] UPDATE statement ORACLE 6 compatible |