From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | bwhite(at)frognet(dot)net, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "'PostGIS Development Discussion'" <postgis-devel(at)postgis(dot)refractions(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Fixing r-tree semantics |
Date: | 2005-06-24 13:27:23 |
Message-ID: | 25914.1119619643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> The operators I went for were as follows:
> A &<| B - true if A's bounding box overlaps or is below B's bounding
> box
> A |&> B - true if B's bounding box overlaps or is above B's bounding
> box
> A <<| B - true if A's bounding box is strictly below B's bounding
> box
> A |>> B - true if A's bounding box is strictly above B's bounding
> box
Well, I was proposing more or less that but with ^ because of the
precedent of the two existing box_above/box_below operator names.
However, I'm quite happy to adopt your names, since that's probably
a more widely used precedent. Sold, unless there are objections.
(BTW, it does look a bit odd that the "|" moves around in your names.
But I don't dislike it enough to not follow the precedent.)
> It would be harder for us to change these operators since they already
> exist, but then again it would be useful from a maintenance point of view to
> keep the strategy numbers and operators the same across both
> implementations.
Agreed, I'll use your strategy number assignments too.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-24 13:37:23 | Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-24 13:21:25 | Re: [PATCHES] Function's LEAST, GREATEST and DECODE (Oracle vararg polymorphic functions) |