Sorry, Gmail made med confused, my biggest "thank you" was to Richard Huxton, who showed me code that worked.
2010/9/26 A B <gentosa...@gmail.com>: > 2010/9/25 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: >>> There's no reason that there couldn't be a point <@ box operator in the >>> opclass, but nobody really uses these geometric types that come with >>> core postgres (at least, not that I can tell). >> >> Actually, as of 9.0 there is a point_ops opclass for GIST, with these >> indexable operators: >> >> >^(point,point) >> <<(point,point) >> >>(point,point) >> <^(point,point) >> ~=(point,point) >> <@(point,box) >> <@(point,polygon) >> <@(point,circle) >> >> I agree that for any more than light-duty geometric work, you ought >> to look at PostGIS. >> >> regards, tom lane > > Thank you Jeff for your reply, that solved the problem. > > Tom, would you like to elaborate on that PostGIS should be used for > other than "light-duty" geometric work? > Is it speed, accuracy or features that is the difference? > For this project I think <@(point,box) is sufficient. What would it > take to motivate a switch to PostGIS for that? > > Best wishes. > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
