2010/9/25 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: >> There's no reason that there couldn't be a point <@ box operator in the >> opclass, but nobody really uses these geometric types that come with >> core postgres (at least, not that I can tell). > > Actually, as of 9.0 there is a point_ops opclass for GIST, with these > indexable operators: > > >^(point,point) > <<(point,point) > >>(point,point) > <^(point,point) > ~=(point,point) > <@(point,box) > <@(point,polygon) > <@(point,circle) > > I agree that for any more than light-duty geometric work, you ought > to look at PostGIS. > > regards, tom lane
Thank you Jeff for your reply, that solved the problem. Tom, would you like to elaborate on that PostGIS should be used for other than "light-duty" geometric work? Is it speed, accuracy or features that is the difference? For this project I think <@(point,box) is sufficient. What would it take to motivate a switch to PostGIS for that? Best wishes. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
