| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about explain of index scan |
| Date: | 2005-09-02 15:38:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20050902153810.GF18258@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:03:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > I wonder why we don't support more operators on Xid, so these things are
> > avoided? Right now we only have =, AFAIR.
>
> I once started to make a btree opclass for XID, and stopped when it
> occurred to me that XID comparison doesn't obey the transitive law.
> btree won't like that...
Not having it does affect the planner somehow, right?
Maybe we could have the opclass but somehow dictate that making indexes
with it is verboten.
--
Alvaro Herrera -- Valdivia, Chile Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-02 15:42:21 | Re: Proof of concept COLLATE support with patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-02 15:31:49 | Re: Question about explain of index scan |