On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Matthew wrote:
For instance, the normal B-tree index on (a, b) is able to answer queries
like a = 5 AND b 1 or a 5. An R-tree would be able to index these,
plus queries like a 5 AND b 1.
Sorry in advance if this is a stupid question, but
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:23:10PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Sorry in advance if this is a stupid question, but how is this better than
two index, one on a and one on b? I supposed there could be a space
savings but beyond that?
You could index on both columns simultaneously without
Matthew wrote:
For instance, the normal B-tree index on (a, b) is able to answer queries
like a = 5 AND b 1 or a 5. An R-tree would be able to index these,
plus queries like a 5 AND b 1.
Sorry in advance if this is a stupid question, but how is this better
than two index, one on a and one
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:28:23PM +, Matthew wrote:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a 1 AND b 4;
This sounds like something an R-tree can do.
I *know* that. However, Postgres (as far as I can see) doesn't provide a
simple R-tree index that
Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:28:23PM +, Matthew wrote:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a 1 AND b 4;
This sounds like something an R-tree can do.
I *know* that. However, Postgres (as far as I can see) doesn't
Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This sounds like something an R-tree can do.
I *know* that. However, Postgres (as far as I can see) doesn't provide a
simple R-tree index that will index two integers. This means I have to
write one myself. I'm asking whether it is possible to get two values
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 06:28:23PM +, Matthew wrote:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a 1 AND b 4;
This sounds like something an R-tree can do.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the
