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 ADE1FD1CACD
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:41:33 +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 52517-10
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:41:03 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC8DD1CAD9
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:41:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i0TIet1i025740;
	Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:40:55 -0500 (EST)
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Cc: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>,
	Achilleus Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>,
	email lists <lists@darrenmackay.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: query not using index for descending records? 
In-reply-to: <20040129101857.D26621@megazone.bigpanda.com> 
References: <20040129131847.GE17068@wolff.to>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0401291525350.9854-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
	<20040129140655.GA14885@wolff.to>
	<20040129075643.D23153@megazone.bigpanda.com>
	<24411.1075397054@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20040129101857.D26621@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
	message dated "Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:27:57 -0800"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:40:55 -0500
Message-ID: <25739.1075401655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200401/273
X-Sequence-Number: 16666

Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
> Yeah, that's what I figured.  I thought it might be useful for people to
> play with though since at least for the integer/float types writing C
> versions of the comparitors is easy. I was thinking for real it'd be nice
> to be able to use the normal comparitor but invert the return value as
> necessary rather than providing two functions, but I didn't look at what
> that would take.

I think the C versions should be written to just call the "normal"
comparators and negate the result, which'll make them one-liner
boilerplate.  It's just a matter of grinding out all that boilerplate ...

			regards, tom lane