X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B219D1B4FB for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:58:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29630-05 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:57:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (unknown [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BE6D1B4E5 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:57:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [66.219.92.2] (HELO temoku) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 3808783; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:58:22 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Michael Glaesmann , pgsql-sql Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Functional index problems. (Was: Many joins: monthly summaries S-L--O--W) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:55:29 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <704FD876-04F0-11D8-81AE-0005029FC1A7@myrealbox.com> In-Reply-To: <704FD876-04F0-11D8-81AE-0005029FC1A7@myrealbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200310221755.13446.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200310/296 X-Sequence-Number: 15696 Michael, > My final thought would be to continue using "functional index", noting=20 > that operators are a special class of function. Out of the above=20 > description of "value expression", I believe only functions and=20 > operators are allowed as expressions in the CREATE INDEX syntax,=20 > correct? (Besides referring to a column.) Well argued. The problem is Peter's point, which you weren't cc'd on: >At least it's better than "functional index", because I had always >wondered where the dysfunctional indexes went. :) --=20 -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco