Re: [HACKERS] Re: attdisbursiont

> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Added to TODO. This will improve VACUUM ANALYZE performance, thought I
> > don't think we have btree comparison functions for all data types,
> > though we should:
>
> > * change VACUUM ANALYZE to use btree comparison functions, not <,=,> calls
>
> There are several places that know more than they should about the
> meaning of "<" etc operators. For example, the parser assumes it
> should use "<" and ">" to implement ORDER BY [DESC]. Making VACUUM
> not depend on specific names for the ordering operators will not
> improve life unless we fix *all* of these places.

Actually, I thought it would be good for performance reasons, not for
portability. We would call one function per attribute instead of three.

>
> Rather than depending on btree to tell us which way is up, maybe the
> pg_type row for a type ought to specify the standard ordering operators
> for the type directly.
>
> While we are at it we could think about saying that there is just one
> "standard ordering operator" for a type and it yields a strcmp-like
> result (minus, zero, plus) rather than several ops yielding booleans.
> But that'd take a lot of changes in btree and everywhere else...
>

The btree comparison functions do just that, returning -1,0,1 like
strcmp, for each type btree supports.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026