-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le 25 août 08 à 16:48, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> But, IIRC, only in the context of index searches, not at the
>> planner level.
>
> No, that's not true at all. There are lots and lots of places now
> where
> we use btree and/or hash operator classes to reason about the
> properties
> of operators.
Yes, but always in relation to operator classes, so from BTrees
opclass or such, which I refered to as "the context of index
searches", as I don't really see any theorical need for opclass if
it's not for indexing.
My formulation was "outright wrong", as you would say, but I hope to
have explained a little better what I'm on: there's not enough direct
semantic information concerning operators for the planner to take full
profit out if it. It this assertion more true?
Regards,
- --
dim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkizBdsACgkQlBXRlnbh1blP5wCgh5h3vAn8EUonABN0ZYV58JQe
xjMAoMpBNMiBLat1lfwGEz0w6rQip8LP
=Lgxd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
