Re: Btree index extension question
От | Dmitry Tkach |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Btree index extension question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3C92A500.5010804@openratings.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Btree index extension question (<fcanedo@hotpop.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
fcanedo@hotpop.com wrote: > > >I understand this: >1. You want to use a btree index because presumably it's faster than a >normal index. > Ahhh.. What do you mean by 'normal index'? I have two reasons to use btree: - It is simpler to implement; - It can be used in combination with other columns (these 15 boolean flags is not the only stuff I need to search by, so, I am going to have to run queries like '... where flags & 33 = 33 and foo=bar'' - to do that, I would need an index on (flags 'bit_ops', foo), where bit_ops is my special set of operations I am looking to define). If I am not using btree for the flags, I would then have to define the whole indexing strategy for all my columns, and I am really hoping to be able to avoid having to do that. > >2. A btree index is a binary tree index that uses the order of values to >find an answer quickly. > Yep. > >3. In your case for instance: a value of 10 should produce a resultset >with bitstrings of 10, 11, 14, 26, ... > Yep. > >Wouldn't know how to get this to work though! :( > Yeah... me neither :-( I am about to give up on this (hate to do that!)... I was trying to make use of a GiST index now, but having some problems with that too :-( Could you please look at the next message I am about to post in a few minutes (about debugging C functions)? Perhaps, you would have some helpful ideas there? Thanks! Dima
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: