| From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| 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 06:46:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20080929064631.GA19449@tomas |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 09:24:48PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> BTW, I think it is (or should be) possible to create an index on
>> hstore->'mycol', so at least one of the reasons why you should *need*
>> to switch to a "real" database column seems bogus.
[...]
> 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.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQFI4HnHBcgs9XrR2kYRAgmiAJ0U9UD8KqX5vLXOGBlW+WwPzzIpEQCY1caS
F4Uug9QD6e0Jw18EvNm28g==
=f8q5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2008-09-29 07:05:00 | Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2008-09-29 05:04:37 | Re: Ad-hoc table type? |