X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176B1533A9 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:02:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56403-10 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:02:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0926553A9A for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:02:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3KG2Y0I001560; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:02:34 -0400 (EDT) To: Marinos Yannikos Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Odd error message (" hash indexes do not support whole-index scans") In-reply-to: <426673DA.2020203@geizhals.at> References: <426673DA.2020203@geizhals.at> Comments: In-reply-to Marinos Yannikos message dated "Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:23:06 +0200" Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:02:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1559.1114012954@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.007 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/304 X-Sequence-Number: 21197 Marinos Yannikos writes: > Shouldn't PostgreSQL behave in a different way in this case? (e.g. just > not use the index): Good catch. But why are you using a hash index for this? regards, tom lane