On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 04:27:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > After further thought about the mergejoinable-operators issue and some > other longstanding planner problems, I have a modest proposal to make: > we should invent the notion of "operator class groups", which identify > sets of compatible operator classes. (I'm not wedded to the name "class > group"; it seems a bit redundant. Anyone have a better idea?) We've > touched on related ideas in past threads but never really put together > a concrete proposal. Here is one.
<snip> I think it's a good idea, though I would point out that in the examples given it's the underlying types that are compatable, not the classes. But I'm unsure if there's a way to use that. These groups seem a reasonable addition to the existing system. Other names I can think of: - type class - type group - compatability class - operator class set None of which sound any good :( It's good is that this provides more information about the underlying types to the system, which improves the possibility of optimisation (and correctness). Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
