On 17.10.2011 01:09, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 01:46 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
* Do we really need non_empty(anyrange) ? You can just do "NOT empty(x)"

To make it a searchable (via GiST) condition, I need an operator. I
could either remove that operator (as it's not amazingly useful), or I
could just not document the function but leave the operator there.

Looking at the most recent patch, I don't actually see any GiST support for the empty and non-empty operators (!? and ?). I don't see how those could be accelerated with GiST, anyway; I think if you want to use an index for those operators, you might as well create a partial or functional index on empty(x).

So I'm actually inclined to remove not only the nonempty function, but also the ? and !? operators. They don't seem very useful, and ? and !? don't feel very intuitive to me, anyway. I'll just leave the empty(x) function.

  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to