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
