>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 8:37 AM, in message <21403(dot)1190036229(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 2:49 AM, in message
>> <1190015368(dot)148293(dot)56830(at)y42g2000hsy(dot)googlegroups(dot)com>, valgog
>> <valgog(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:=20
>>> Are you sure you understood what was the question?
>>> Is the TBL1.CATEGORY = TBL2.CATEGORY the same as TBL1.CATEGORY &
>>> TBL2.CATEGORY > 0?
>> Yes, given that he stipulated that one and only one bit would be set.
> Really? In that case, isn't this bit-field just a bad implementation of
> an enum-style field?
My bad. I did misread it. Sorry, all.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: W.Alphonse HAROUNY||Date: 2007-09-17 14:40:49|
|Subject: Re: Index usage when bitwise operator is used|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-09-17 13:37:09|
|Subject: Re: Index usage when bitwise operator is used |