2011/6/19 Hitoshi Harada :
> 2011/6/17 Andrew Tipton :
>>
>> At this point I'm a bit lost -- while pg_amop.h has plenty of examples
>> of crosstype comparison operators for btree index methods, there are
>> none for GiST. Is GiST somehow a special case in this regard?
>
> It was I that was lost. A
2011/6/17 Andrew Tipton :
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 22:16, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it worth adding new consistent function for those purposes? The
>> approach in the patch as stands looks kludge to me.
>
> Thanks for your review. Coming back to this patch after a few months'
> time, I h
Andrew Tipton writes:
> At this point I'm a bit lost -- while pg_amop.h has plenty of examples
> of crosstype comparison operators for btree index methods, there are
> none for GiST. Is GiST somehow a special case in this regard?
AFAIR, GIST doesn't use the concept of a crosstype opclass entry.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 22:16, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>
> I reviewed the patch and worried about hard-wired magic number as
> StrategyNumber. At least you should use #define to indicate the
> number's meaning.
>
> In addition, the modified gist_box_consistent() is too dangerous;
> q_box is declared
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2011/2/24 Andrew Tipton :
>> While playing around with the BOX and POINT datatypes, I was surprised to
>> note that BOX @> POINT (and likewise POINT <@ BOX) queries were not using
>> the GiST index I had created on the BOX column. The attac
2011/2/24 Andrew Tipton :
> While playing around with the BOX and POINT datatypes, I was surprised to
> note that BOX @> POINT (and likewise POINT <@ BOX) queries were not using
> the GiST index I had created on the BOX column. The attached patch adds a
> new strategy @>(BOX,POINT) to the box_ops
Andrew Tipton wrote:
> should I add this to CF-Next?
Yes.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
While playing around with the BOX and POINT datatypes, I was surprised to
note that BOX @> POINT (and likewise POINT <@ BOX) queries were not using
the GiST index I had created on the BOX column. The attached patch adds a
new strategy @>(BOX,POINT) to the box_ops opclass. Internally,
gist_box_con
