I think you probably could use contrib/intarray if you redesign
your scheme.
Oleg
On Sat, 19 May 2001, mlw wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> > > What's so hard about writing "IN" rather than "=" ???
> >
> > Even more to the point, if we did adopt such a (crazy IMHO)
> > interpretation of '=', what makes anyone think that it'd be
> > any more efficient than IN?
> >
> > AFAICT, mlw is hoping that redefining '=' would magically avoid the
> > performance problems with IN, but my bet is it'd be just the same.
> >
> > What we need to do is teach the system how to handle WHERE ... IN ...
> > as a form of join. Changing semantics of operators isn't necessary
> > nor helpful.
>
> I will defer, of course, to your interpretation of '=', but I still think it
> (if implemented efficiently) could be cool. However, I hang my head in shame
> that I didn't see this syntax:
>
> select table.* from table, (select function() as field) as result where
> table.field = result.field;
>
> It seems to be pretty efficient, and satisfies the main criteria that I needed,
> which was a full text search could be used on select with no external
> programming language.
>
> Currently my system can't be used without an external programming language, and
> this is a huge, if awkward solution. Thanks all.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
>
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
