| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Michael Glaesmann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Expressional Indexes |
| Date: | 2003-10-22 22:01:57 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0310222359420.8099-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane writes:
> Mainly that "expressional" is a made-up word.
At least it's better than "functional index", because I had always
wondered where the dysfunctional indexes went. :)
I like "expression index".
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-22 22:48:30 | Re: advice |
| Previous Message | w fm3 | 2003-10-22 21:55:47 | Update rule on multiple tables fails? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-22 22:45:20 | Re: Query planner: current_* vs. explicit date |
| Previous Message | Timo | 2003-10-22 21:58:08 | A tricky sql-query... |