From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Subselects open issue Nr. NEW |
Date: | 1998-02-17 09:34:37 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C6010A51DC@sdexcsrv1.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry, I take back my gordian knot, I found it in my own brains ;-(
For a <=, <, >=, > a lexical ordering would be more intuitive,
since that is how a compound index would sort.
so (a, b) <= (c, d) would resolve to:
(a <= c) or ((a = c) and (b <= c))
What happens to !=~ ? Should also be _OR_ ed.
I guess that leaves us at a point of no go. Take it out ? *tear drops
falling*
Andreas
> Vectors cannot be strictly ordered. "Partial orderings" are possible.
I think it should say: an order has to be defined (lexical, vector lenght,
area size ..... )
>
> Let A be (1, 2)
> Let B be (4, 7)
> Let C be (3, 5)
> Let D be (5, 10)
>
> A is smallest; D is largest; how do B and C relate?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brandon Ibach | 1998-02-17 10:02:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Shared tables |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ | 1998-02-17 08:52:50 | Re: Subselects open issue Nr. NEW |