Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:53:54 +0100
From: Ralf Mattes <rm@mh-freiburg.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Gilles Bernard <gbernard@matra-ms2i.fr>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators
Message-ID: <20010101145354.A8897@forte.mh-freiburg.de>
References: <200012290946.KAA01221@fwm1.matra-ms2i.fr>
	<14474.978302554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <14474.978302554@sss.pgh.pa.us>;
	from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us on Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 05:42:34PM -0500

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