Re: WIP: RangeTypes

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: RangeTypes
Date: 2011-01-29 18:57:54
Message-ID: 1296327474.11513.509.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:41 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> +1 in principal. I think we should try to avoid the user of the term
> "period" if possible, and I see definite benefits to a simple model of
> $typename . 'range';

Interesting, I didn't realize that PERIOD was such an undesirable type
name.

> Is there GIN support? GIN seems to be the preferred index type for
> this sort of thing, no?

GiST is the natural index access method if we approach ranges as a
spatial type. I don't quite know what you have in mind for GIN; what
keys would you extract from the value '[1.23,4.56)' ?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2011-01-29 19:00:42 Re: WIP: RangeTypes
Previous Message Thom Brown 2011-01-29 18:57:33 Re: WIP: RangeTypes