Re: Ad-hoc table type? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Ad-hoc table type?
Date
Msg-id E50E3E37-9117-451F-A8B3-D0EB425F2E3E@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ad-hoc table type?  (tomas@tuxteam.de)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sep 28, 2008, at 23:46, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

>> I'm not sure what that means. Can you create normal btree or hash
>> indexes
>> on hstore columns? And is the index useful for both `@>` and `?`?
>
> That means that those operations are supported by a GiST (or GIN)
> index,
> that is:
>
>  "find the records where col contains 'foo => 1, bar => 2'"
>
> is supported by the index. Likewise for "is contained in" and "has
> key".
> It's a bit like having mini-indexes on all keys (although I guess not
> that efficient). Pretty cool, I'd say.

Yeah, that does sound good. I look forward to having an excuse for
playing with this type…

Best,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: CTE patch versus UNION type determination rules
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fatal Errors