From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pierre Ducroquet" <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes |
Date: | 2011-09-29 02:42:55 |
Message-ID: | 13745.1317264175@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Pierre Ducroquet" <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> writes:
> [ the "hstore ? text" operator no longer matches an hstore GIST index ]
Hmm ... this doesn't seem to be specific to either hstore or GIST; it's
a collation problem. The index is marked as having no collation, which
is reasonable since hstore is a collation-less type. However, the ?
OpExpr gets marked as having "default" collation because it has one
collatable input, namely the text constant. And then,
match_clause_to_indexcol decides the clause doesn't match the index.
Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index? If not, what's
the correct rule? I don't like the idea of concluding that hstore has
to be forcibly assigned a collation just because it has some operators
that accept text ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-09-29 03:22:48 | Re: BUG #6232: hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes |
Previous Message | Vikas Mehta | 2011-09-28 22:22:12 | BUG #6234: Memory leak from PQexec |