From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Temporal Extensions for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2007-02-16 20:39:24 |
Message-ID: | 20070216203924.GH870@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> My suggestion would be to focus on a period data type first and
> foremost, as that's something that could be readily used by a lot of
> folks. Of particular note, it's difficult to query tables that have
> start_time and end_time fields to define a period; it's easy to screw up
> the boundary conditions, and it's also hard to make those queries
> perform well without going to extra lengths (such as defining a 'bogus'
> GiST index on something like box(point(start,start),point(end,end)). And
> it's not possible to do that in a way that avoids floating points and
> their errors.
FWIW there's already a type called tinterval that stores (start,end). I
don't think it's very much documented; maybe it can be extended or used
as base for a new, more complete and robust type, indexable in a more
natural way, etc etc.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-16 21:00:57 | autovacuum next steps |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-16 20:13:35 | Re: RFC: Temporal Extensions for PostgreSQL |