Re: Daterange question

From: Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Daterange question
Date: 2024-01-20 06:10:49
Message-ID: VisenaEmail.4.77e0ca2a10ddb492.18d257d4a76@origo-test01.app.internal.visena.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

På lørdag 20. januar 2024 kl. 06:35:07, skrev Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
<mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>>:
[…]
Well, we can definitively state that the NOT makes this unindexable.
You need a WHERE clause that looks like
indexed-column indexable-operator pseudo-constant
which this isn't, nor does << have a negator operator that could
allow the NOT to be simplified out.

Wouldn't
drange && daterange(CURRENT_DATE, NULL, '[)')
serve the purpose? That should be indexable.

regards, tom lane
Yes it will, thanks.

--
Andreas Joseph Krogh
CTO / Partner - Visena AS
Mobile: +47 909 56 963
andreas(at)visena(dot)com <mailto:andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
www.visena.com <https://www.visena.com>
<https://www.visena.com>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Angelico 2024-01-20 22:43:11 Logical replication claims to work, not working - new tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-01-20 05:35:07 Re: Daterange question