Re: Like vs '=' bug with indexing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: m w <mttf2000(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Like vs '=' bug with indexing
Date: 2001-02-04 18:59:12
Message-ID: 6702.981313152@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

m w <mttf2000(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Inconsistent behavior indicates that a different
> matching algorithm is used if one uses an index
> instead of a table scan. That scares me.

A seq scan and an index scan are inherently different algorithms,
so I don't see exactly how you think we can avoid this risk.

In particular, if you are dealing with a btree index and a "WHERE
column = constant" query, then a seq scan is only going to be concerned
with the behavior of the '=' operator --- does it return TRUE or not
for any particular row? But an index search is inherently going to make
ordered comparisons (<, =, >). So there is always a potential for
inconsistent behavior if the ordering operators produce results that are
inconsistent with simple '='. We cannot design that away --- all we can
do is fix such bugs when one is discovered in a particular datatype.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-02-04 19:12:06 Re: Implementing an operator in C?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-02-04 18:45:27 Re: Like vs '=' bug with indexing