Re: Rangejoin rebased

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Do we optimize for TIMESTAMP <@ RANGE as well?

Not currently. It requires a little extra complexity because empty
ranges will match anything and need special handling.

> Does this link in nicely with partition-aware joins?

Yes: if the partitioning is on a non-range column, and the join key
includes both the partition key and a range column, it can do
partition-wise joins.

It does not try to invent a concept of partitioning on a spatial key.

> Does it allow partition exclusion if you join a daterange to a time
> range partitioned table?

I'm a little unclear what you mean here. Are you talking about spatial
partitioning? Or are you talking about joining a daterange column to a
timestamptz column (I suppose using @>)? I think the answer to your
question is "no", but let me know if I am missing an important case.

    Regards,
         Jeff Davis