Re: Attempt at work around of int4 query won't touch int8 index ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: James Robinson <jlrobins(at)socialserve(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Attempt at work around of int4 query won't touch int8 index ...
Date: 2003-09-11 02:44:17
Message-ID: 20901.1063248257@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

James Robinson <jlrobins(at)socialserve(dot)com> writes:
> Is this just a dead end, or is there some variation of this that might
> possibly work, so that ultimately an undoctored literal number, when
> applied to an int8 column, could find an index?

I think it's a dead end. What I was playing with this afternoon was
removing the int8-and-int4 comparison operators from pg_operator.
It works as far as making "int8col = 42" do the right thing, but I'm
not sure yet about side-effects.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-09-11 02:50:08 Re: Reading data in bulk - help?
Previous Message James Robinson 2003-09-11 01:13:29 Attempt at work around of int4 query won't touch int8 index ...