Re: query not using index for descending records?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>, email lists <lists(at)darrenmackay(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: query not using index for descending records?
Date: 2004-01-29 18:40:55
Message-ID: 25739.1075401655@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, that's what I figured. I thought it might be useful for people to
> play with though since at least for the integer/float types writing C
> versions of the comparitors is easy. I was thinking for real it'd be nice
> to be able to use the normal comparitor but invert the return value as
> necessary rather than providing two functions, but I didn't look at what
> that would take.

I think the C versions should be written to just call the "normal"
comparators and negate the result, which'll make them one-liner
boilerplate. It's just a matter of grinding out all that boilerplate ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2004-01-29 18:41:19 Re: On the performance of views
Previous Message Octavio Alvarez 2004-01-29 18:40:46 Re: LEFT JOIN on one and/or another column (thanks)