Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OK, there might have been a mental shortcut there. "Can't be compared"
was supposed to mean "can't decide whether one value of that type is
bigger than another". Doing DISTINCT without an equality operator is
nonsense. Doing it without a comparision operator is only very slow.
Well, you're still missing my point, which is how do you decide which
operator is "equality"? It was already pointed out upthread that
ignoring the type's operators and using bitwise comparison is a pretty
sucky alternative. The only infrastructure in Postgres that can
identify which operators have which semantics is index opclasses.
All right, I get it. You get the equality operator from the index
opclass for the type, I didn't understand fully how it worked.
I see two possible TODO items in this discussion. One is that type
"point" is sorely lacking in opclass support. The other is that it
might be interesting to support DISTINCT in cases where only a hash
opclass, not a btree opclass, is available --- which would lead to
a hash-aggregation-like implementation instead of sort-and-uniq.
Same thing for GROUP BY. One last remark: unless something is done about
it in 8.4, maybe it is worthwhile to change the error message (which
clearly confused Nick) and add some documentation about why you can't
use DISTINCT with types without a btree index opclass?
--
Jan Urbanski
GPG key ID: E583D7D2
ouden estin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
