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 CCB90D1BA94 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:10:53 +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 40039-09 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:10:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F681D1BAA6 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:10:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from mwynhau.demon.co.uk ([193.237.186.96] helo=mainbox.archonet.com) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aw7Ex-0009on-0U; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:10:51 +0000 Received: by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix, from userid 529) id 79B4D16A1D; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:10:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from client17.archonet.com (client17.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22521591F; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:10:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Richard Huxton To: Joe Conway Subject: Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:10:47 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <200402251918.20289.dev@archonet.com> <200402252036.40747.dev@archonet.com> <403D0C0B.2040507@joeconway.com> In-Reply-To: <403D0C0B.2040507@joeconway.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402252210.47496.dev@archonet.com> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=0.15.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/351 X-Sequence-Number: 17041 On Wednesday 25 February 2004 20:56, Joe Conway wrote: > Richard Huxton wrote: > > That's not quite the same though, because it means I need to split > > ABCAA..ABDBB into ABCAA..ABCZZ and ABDAA..ABDZZ but it's close enough > > unless someone is feeling clever this evening. > > Would (a series of) partial indexes help? Not here - it's the irritation of splitting my single range into two at some arbitrary boundary that bugs me with this solution. Ah well - if it was that straightforward, I wouldn't be able to charge for it. Thanks Joe -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd