From: Ralf Mattes <rm@mh-freiburg.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Gilles Bernard <gbernard@matra-ms2i.fr>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:53:54 +0100
Message-ID: <20010101145354.A8897@forte.mh-freiburg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14474.978302554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200012290946.KAA01221@fwm1.matra-ms2i.fr>
<14474.978302554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 05:42:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[..]
> Var on the left is the required normal form for indexscan restriction
> clauses. Postgres should be able to figure out that it can flip your
> clause as given into that form ... but for some reason, && is not marked
> as commutative in the 7.0 system catalogs, so it won't do it for you.
>
> I have fixed that for 7.1. If you really want to write the var on the
> right side right now, you could patch your system catalogs for yourself:
>
> UPDATE pg_operator SET oprcom = oid WHERE oprname = '&&'
>
Still, the remarkl about running 'vacuum' after the creation
of an index seems valid. I was bitten by this just last week--
somehow it seems counterintuitive to have to vacuum a table only
to tell the system that an index exists. This should be the job
of 'create index' or am i wrong?
Ralf Mattes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: rm@mh-freiburg.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gbernard@matra-ms2i.fr
Subject: Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators
In-Reply-To: <20010101145354.A8897@forte.mh-freiburg.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox