Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > > I guess what you're talking about is a constrained index, of which a > > unique index is just a particular type. I suppose the actual constraint > > would be one of the operators defined for the operator class (since > > whatever the test is, it needs to be indexable). Although some would > > obviously be more useful than others... > > I think the generalization that would be appropriate for GIST is that > a "unique" index guarantees there are no two entries x, y such that > x ~ y, where ~ is some boolean operator nominated by the opclass. We'd > probably have to insist that ~ is commutative (x ~ y iff y ~ x).
I have no big contribution here. I just want to say this is a cool idea. These Generalized uniqueish constraints could make a lot of neat things possible. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
