Greg Stark writes:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
>>> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index?
>> That sounds correct on first reading.
> Doesn't this depend on the semantics of
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
>> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index?
>
> That sounds correct on first reading.
>
Doesn't this depend on the semantics of the ? operator?
Hypothe
On ons, 2011-09-28 at 22:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pierre Ducroquet" writes:
> > [ the "hstore ? text" operator no longer matches an hstore GIST index ]
>
> Hmm ... this doesn't seem to be specific to either hstore or GIST; it's
> a collation problem. The index is marked as having no collatio
"Pierre Ducroquet" writes:
> [ the "hstore ? text" operator no longer matches an hstore GIST index ]
Hmm ... this doesn't seem to be specific to either hstore or GIST; it's
a collation problem. The index is marked as having no collation, which
is reasonable since hstore is a collation-less type.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6232
> Logged by: Pierre Ducroquet
> Email address: p.p...@pinaraf.info
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
> Operating system: Linux Debian, amd64
> Description:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6232
Logged by: Pierre Ducroquet
Email address: p.p...@pinaraf.info
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
Operating system: Linux Debian, amd64
Description:hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes
Details:
The following c
