| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces |
| Date: | 2010-04-10 16:23:27 |
| Message-ID: | k2q603c8f071004100923o40a8a2dcna625af7ff6cf0448@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
>>
>> To give some context, I started a thread a while ago:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg01403.php
>>
>
> Interesting, a join type for overlaps, which makes me think a bit of the
> staircase join for pre-post coordinates. However, does a join operator type
> need certain kinds of properties of the operator involved, e.g. being
> commutative, transitive etc? Else the join reordering fails. The latter
> fails for the overlap operator.
I don't think I follow this. As far as I know, the join order
constraints don't depend on the choice of operator.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-04-10 17:13:22 | Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-04-10 16:05:02 | Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces |