| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Ad-hoc table type? |
| Date: | 2008-09-29 16:08:09 |
| Message-ID: | E50E3E37-9117-451F-A8B3-D0EB425F2E3E@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 28, 2008, at 23:46, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de wrote:
>> I'm not sure what that means. Can you create normal btree or hash
>> indexes
>> on hstore columns? And is the index useful for both `@>` and `?`?
>
> That means that those operations are supported by a GiST (or GIN)
> index,
> that is:
>
> "find the records where col contains 'foo => 1, bar => 2'"
>
> is supported by the index. Likewise for "is contained in" and "has
> key".
> It's a bit like having mini-indexes on all keys (although I guess not
> that efficient). Pretty cool, I'd say.
Yeah, that does sound good. I look forward to having an excuse for
playing with this type…
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-29 16:14:57 | Re: Fatal Errors |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-29 16:06:43 | CTE patch versus UNION type determination rules |