Re: WIP: RangeTypes
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: RangeTypes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9B3EF226-7C00-4216-8CEB-7CFEE68DBDAE@kineticode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: RangeTypes (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: RangeTypes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:41 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> +1 in principal. I think we should try to avoid the user of the term >> "period" if possible, and I see definite benefits to a simple model of >> $typename . 'range'; > > Interesting, I didn't realize that PERIOD was such an undesirable type > name. It's not *hugely* undesirable. I just tend to think that "range" is more so. >> Is there GIN support? GIN seems to be the preferred index type for >> this sort of thing, no? > > GiST is the natural index access method if we approach ranges as a > spatial type. I don't quite know what you have in mind for GIN; what > keys would you extract from the value '[1.23,4.56)' ? I think I'm just revealing my ignorance of these index types and what they're good for. My impression has been that GIN wasa better but less-full-featured alternative to GiST and getting better with Tom's recent fixes for its handling of NULLs.But, uh, obviously not. Best, David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: