From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Named Operators |
Date: | 2023-01-27 15:26:01 |
Message-ID: | 5d454cec-1bb5-2131-f3d8-f431cf29b7eb@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12.01.23 14:55, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>> Matter of taste, I guess. But more importantly, defining an operator
>> gives you many additional features that the planner can use to
>> optimize your query differently, which it can't do with functions. See
>> the COMMUTATOR, HASHES, etc. clause in the CREATE OPERATOR command.
> I see. Wouldn't it be better then to instead make it possible for the
> planner to detect the use of the functions used in operators and treat
> them as aliases of the operator? Or am I missing something w.r.t.
> differences between operator and function invocation?
>
> E.g. indexes on `int8pl(my_bigint, 1)` does not match queries for
> `my_bigint + 1` (and vice versa), while they should be able to support
> that, as OPERATOR(pg_catalog.+(int8, int8)) 's function is int8pl.
I have been thinking about something like this for a long time.
Basically, we would merge pg_proc and pg_operator internally. Then, all
the special treatment for operators would also be available to
two-argument functions.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-01-27 15:29:37 | Re: Set arbitrary GUC options during initdb |
Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2023-01-27 15:24:16 | Re: Set arbitrary GUC options during initdb |