"TJ O'Donnell" <tjo@acm.org> writes:
> Shouldn't the ~ (contains) operator be included also?
> Isn't ~ the commutator of @ ?
Yeah, it looks like the documentation is in error:
regression=# select amopopr::regoperator,amopstrategy from pg_amop where amopclaid in
regression-# (select oid from pg_opclass where opcamid = 402); amopopr | amopstrategy
---------------------+--------------<<(box,box) | 1&<(box,box) | 2&&(box,box)
| 3&>(box,box) | 4>>(box,box) | 5~=(box,box) |
6~(box,box) | 7@(box,box) | 8<<(polygon,polygon) |
1&<(polygon,polygon)| 2&&(polygon,polygon) | 3&>(polygon,polygon) |
4>>(polygon,polygon)| 5~=(polygon,polygon) | 6~(polygon,polygon) |
7@(polygon,polygon) | 8
(16 rows)
Of course, the thing that leaps out here is that there are only two
built-in opclasses for rtree. Not exactly confidence building.
> I am considering using R-tree's for other-than-geometric purposes.
I concur with Andrew's suggestion to consider GIST. GIST has its own
issues, but at least there are people looking at it/using it/working on it.
R-tree doesn't seem to have any user community that really cares.
regards, tom lane