From: | "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Does anybody use ORDER BY x USING y? |
Date: | 2005-09-18 20:26:10 |
Message-ID: | 5066E5A966339E42AA04BA10BA706AE50A9398@rodrick.geeknet.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout Wrote:
> > > All we lose is the ability to say USING [arbitrary op]. Does
anybody
> > > use this. Would people object to requiring the operator after
USING
> > > to be part of an operator class?
> >
> > Hmmm ... would this prevent the hackish workaround for
case-insensitive sort?
>
> Err, which hackish workaround would that be? The right
> solution is citext which creates it's own operator class.
> This doesn't have anything to do with functional indexes either.
>
> I've been using Google to find any interesting use of the
> USING clause but havn't found any yet.
I was actually of the impression that that was exacty what it was for:
specifying what op(class) to use for the sort in case you wanted to use
a non-default opclass for the type, and/or if the less-than operator
wasn't called '<'.
... John
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-09-18 20:28:34 | Re: Does anybody use ORDER BY x USING y? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-09-18 20:19:06 | Re: Does anybody use ORDER BY x USING y? |