On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'd thought that I'd previously sent a message containing a set of > > definitions for the reverse opclasses (not meant for inclusion to the > > system because I was making SQL functions that basically did -<normal > > comparison function> to use as the function of the operator class, but > > possibly worth playing with) but now that I actually search again, I don't > > see it. > > I don't recall having seen such a thing go by... > > I fear that using SQL functions as comparators would only be useful for > proof-of-concept, not as an industrial-strength implementation. The > index code needs comparator functions not to leak memory, and I doubt > that that could be guaranteed with a SQL function. You'd probably have > speed issues too.
Yeah, that's what I figured. I thought it might be useful for people to play with though since at least for the integer/float types writing C versions of the comparitors is easy. I was thinking for real it'd be nice to be able to use the normal comparitor but invert the return value as necessary rather than providing two functions, but I didn't look at what that would take. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
