> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
>> Well, one obvious completely general method is to teach the planner
>> (somehow) to spot conditions of the form
>> (a > $1 OR (a = $1 AND b > $2) OR (a = $1 AND b = $2 AND c > $3) ...)
>> etc. and make them indexable if the sense of the > or < operator at
>
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> Tom> Lastly, your proposed use-case has some attraction, but this
> Tom> proposal only supports it if the column you need to be differently
> Tom> sorted is textual. What if the sort columns are all numerics and
> Tom> timestamps?
> There a
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:23:23PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "David" == David Fetter writes:
>
> First, in testing the patch I found there were indeed some missing
> cases: the sortsupport version of the comparator needs to be fixed too.
> I attach a draft addition to your patch, you sh
> "David" == David Fetter writes:
First, in testing the patch I found there were indeed some missing
cases: the sortsupport version of the comparator needs to be fixed too.
I attach a draft addition to your patch, you should probably look at
adding test cases that need this to work.
David>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 02:30:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > Please find attached a patch for $Subject.
>
> I think there's a reason why this hasn't been proposed before.
>
> Back before we had full support of ASC/DESC index sort order, there was
> interest in having reve
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> Lastly, your proposed use-case has some attraction, but this
Tom> proposal only supports it if the column you need to be differently
Tom> sorted is textual. What if the sort columns are all numerics and
Tom> timestamps?
There are already trivial ways to r
David Fetter writes:
> Please find attached a patch for $Subject.
I think there's a reason why this hasn't been proposed before.
Back before we had full support of ASC/DESC index sort order, there was
interest in having reverse-sort operator classes, and there are bits and
pieces still in the co
Folks,
Please find attached a patch for $Subject.
Motivation:
When people are doing keyset pagination, the simple cases redound to
adding a WHERE that looks like
(a, b, c) > (most_recent_a, most_recent_b, most_recent_c)
which corresponds to an ORDER BY clause that looks like
ORDER BY
