| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes |
| Date: | 2011-09-29 04:00:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMR-PkJV7F+owD54xKt+kY8Sk3OSYwwETkcuv0GpCNKZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
>> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index?
>
> That sounds correct on first reading.
>
Doesn't this depend on the semantics of the ? operator?
Hypothetically if there was an operator like ?< which returned a list
of hstore keys that were < the argument then ?< would indeed depend on
the collation used even if hstore didn't do collations. If there was
an index type on hstore which could handle ?< then it would need to
have the right collation to be usable.
Of course we know ? doesn't depend on the collation but where is that
information? I suspect we should actually have an explicit flag for
each operator.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-29 04:08:14 | Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-09-29 03:22:48 | Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes |