| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Get more from indices. |
| Date: | 2014-04-10 13:25:31 |
| Message-ID: | 13118.1397136331@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> (2014/04/10 0:08), Tom Lane wrote:
>> TBH I think that's barely the tip of the iceberg of cases where this
>> patch will get the wrong answer.
>> Also, I don't see it doing anything to check the ordering
>> of multiple index columns
> I think that the following code in index_pathkeys_are_extensible() would
> check the ordering:
> + if (!pathkeys_contained_in(pathkeys, root->query_pathkeys))
> + return false;
Hm ... if you're relying on that, then what's the point of the new loop
at all?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-04-10 13:26:46 | Re: Adding unsigned 256 bit integers |
| Previous Message | Olivier Lalonde | 2014-04-10 13:13:47 | Adding unsigned 256 bit integers |