Re: [GENERAL] Geometric operators
От | Jeff Hoffmann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Geometric operators |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 376A9F80.718137C8@remapcorp.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Geometric operators (selkovjr.mcs.anl.gov@mcs.anl.gov) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] Geometric operators
|
Список | pgsql-general |
selkovjr.mcs.anl.gov@mcs.anl.gov wrote: > That is not exactly so, if I may. '&&' is, like Steffen has already > mentioned, an operator for overlap. What the original posting inquired > about was containment. There are two operators for that, '~' and > '@', with the meanings of 'contains' and 'contained', respectively. you are, of course, correct. there are probably more operators in there than anybody would actually use. i noticed the docs on 6.5 have a lot of "?" by the descriptions of geometric operators. does this mean that nobody actually knows how this stuff works? > > As a side comment, you don't need type-casting for the box > constants -- they are coerced -- and you might as well omit > parentheses: > > select * from mytable where box_field && '100,100,200,200'; > > unless you want to stay consistent with the way boxes represent > themselves on the output. i think it's a bit more readable to put all of that extra stuff in there, but then again, i don't like putting the opening { on its own line in C code, for similar reasons. i guess i'm just a rebel. btw, does anyone have any hints as to why the r-tree indexes aren't working for me in 6.5? i sent a message about it earlier today and i've been poking around when i've had time, but i haven't figured it out yet. jeff
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: