On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rodrigo Barboza writes:
> > I created a implic cast for mytype to bigint.
> > So when I do the same query it does seq scan, because the column is
> > transformed into bigint.
>
> Yeah. One reason why there's not an unsigned int type already is
Rodrigo Barboza writes:
> I created a implic cast for mytype to bigint.
> So when I do the same query it does seq scan, because the column is
> transformed into bigint.
Yeah. One reason why there's not an unsigned int type already is that
it seems impossible to shoehorn it into the numeric promo
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rodrigo Barboza writes:
> > I created a type 'mytype' (an unsigned int) and created an operator class
> > for index.
> > Then I created a table with a column of my type and isnerted 1000
> entries.
> > But no matter how many entries I have in th
Rodrigo Barboza writes:
> I created a type 'mytype' (an unsigned int) and created an operator class
> for index.
> Then I created a table with a column of my type and isnerted 1000 entries.
> But no matter how many entries I have in the table, it never uses the
> index. It always does a seq scan.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Rodrigo Barboza
wrote:
>
> Here is the explain analyze with 1000 entries:
>
> explain analyze select * from mytable where a > 120::mytype and a <
> 530::mytype;
>
I'm not sure this is appropiate for -hackers, maybe should post on -general.
Also provide scripts wit
Hi guys.
I created a type 'mytype' (an unsigned int) and created an operator class
for index.
Then I created a table with a column of my type and isnerted 1000 entries.
But no matter how many entries I have in the table, it never uses the
index. It always does a seq scan.
Here is the explain analy
