Re: Operator class group proposal
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Operator class group proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6347.1166845343@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Operator class group proposal (Gregory Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Operator class group proposal
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes: > So the only reason we needed the cross-data-type operators was to get better > estimates? I thought without them you couldn't get an index-based plan at all. Oh, hm, there is that --- you won't get a nestloop with inner indexscan unless the join expression uses the unmodified inner variable (unless you do something weird like provide an index on the casted value...) However, we need to be pretty wary about widening the families unless we're sure that the semantics are right. In particular, I think that numeric-vs-float crosstype operators would violate the transitive law: you could have values for which A=B and B=C but A!=C. This is because we smash numerics to float for comparison, and so there are distinct numeric values that can compare equal to the same float. bigint against float same problem. It'd be OK to integrate integers and numeric into one class, but how much real value is there in that? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: