On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:01:57PM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> ? A transformOpclassLike function could verify that foo and the opcintype
> of int4_ops have the same typlen and typbyval, and that the operators and
> support procs are backed by C functions, and return a list of
> CREATE OPERATOR
On 05/22/17 18:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Chapman Flack wrote:
>> CREATE INDEX ON foo USING btree ( bar, baz ALSO quux );
>
> INCLUDING:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56168952.4010...@postgrespro.ru
I'd buy that.
-Chap
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Chapman Flack wrote:
> That was what gave me the idea in the first place, which then
> I realized could be more generally useful. If I could say
> something like
>
> CREATE INDEX ON foo USING btree ( bar, baz ALSO quux );
>
> so that only bar and baz are compared in insertion and search,
> but
On 05/22/2017 05:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Agreed, but even if we have any such syntax, making it work for hash
> indexes is tricky, because we currently store the hash code in the
> index, not the original hash index key.
That was what gave me the idea in the first place, which then
I realized
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 05/19/17 11:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> No, nobody's done anything about allowing hash indexes to support
>> uniqueness AFAIK. I don't have a clear picture of how much work
>> it would be, but it would likely be more
On 05/19/17 11:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, nobody's done anything about allowing hash indexes to support
> uniqueness AFAIK. I don't have a clear picture of how much work
> it would be, but it would likely be more than trivial effort;
I see what you mean. Because of the way hash values are
Chapman Flack writes:
> Was my guess about the reason right? Does this PG10 announcement
> also mean it will be possible to use UNIQUE constraints with some
> pure-identifier, no-natural-ordering type that supports only hashing?
No, nobody's done anything about allowing
Hi,
The item on hash indexes reminded me of an old comment from years
ago that I put in the code of the first custom PG datatype I ever
built at $work:
COMMENT ON OPERATOR CLASS puid_ops USING btree IS
'As puids are only identifiers, there is no obvious reason to define
ordering operators or