Re: Is indexing broken for bigint columns?

From: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
To: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is indexing broken for bigint columns?
Date: 2004-02-24 23:33:52
Message-ID: D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B8299CA816@voyager.corporate.connx.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Mascari [mailto:mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:27 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Is indexing broken for bigint columns?
>
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/smith20010821.php3?page=3
> >
>
> bigint indexes work fine. The queries probably referenced 32-bit
> integer constants that were neither quoted nor CAST. I always start
> bigint sequences at 5 billion. This ensures that client applications
> aren't assuming 32-bit quantities that will break once ~4.2 billion
> is reached and I get index scans without quoting or casting free.
> But IIRC there's a change in the development tree to jettison the
> requirement for quoting/casting...

I think it would be awfully nice for "conversions that make sense" to
happen implicitly.
Including for function calls.
Including comparison operators.
Etc.

I have had to write a ton of work-around stuff and I still keep finding
holes in it.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dann Corbit 2004-02-24 23:35:35 Re: Is indexing broken for bigint columns?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-02-24 23:28:36 Re: select statement against pg_stats returns inconsistent data