On Jan 29, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:41 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> +1 in principal. I think we should try to avoid the user of the term >> "period" if possible, and I see definite benefits to a simple model of >> $typename . 'range'; > > Interesting, I didn't realize that PERIOD was such an undesirable type > name.
It's not *hugely* undesirable. I just tend to think that "range" is more so. >> Is there GIN support? GIN seems to be the preferred index type for >> this sort of thing, no? > > GiST is the natural index access method if we approach ranges as a > spatial type. I don't quite know what you have in mind for GIN; what > keys would you extract from the value '[1.23,4.56)' ? I think I'm just revealing my ignorance of these index types and what they're good for. My impression has been that GIN was a better but less-full-featured alternative to GiST and getting better with Tom's recent fixes for its handling of NULLs. But, uh, obviously not. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
