-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le 25 août 08 à 16:48, Tom Lane a écrit :
But, IIRC, only in the context of index searches, not at the
planner level.
No, that's not true at all. There are lots and lots of places now
where
we use btree and/or hash operator classes to reason about the
properties
of operators.
Yes, but always in relation to operator classes, so from BTrees
opclass or such, which I refered to as "the context of index
searches", as I don't really see any theorical need for opclass if
it's not for indexing.
My formulation was "outright wrong", as you would say, but I hope to
have explained a little better what I'm on: there's not enough direct
semantic information concerning operators for the planner to take full
profit out if it. It this assertion more true?
Regards,
- --
dim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkizBdsACgkQlBXRlnbh1blP5wCgh5h3vAn8EUonABN0ZYV58JQe
xjMAoMpBNMiBLat1lfwGEz0w6rQip8LP
=Lgxd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
