| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Date: | 2014-08-06 16:29:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpawjqS-jz31g-W+EJ1g+ic0mouARerCWdxWTUgSBWi0+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> "Summary" seems good. If I get enough votes I can change it to that.
>
> CREATE INDEX foo ON t USING summary (cols)
>
> "Summarizing" seems weird on that command. Not sure about "compressed
> range", as you would have to use an abbreviation or run the words
> together.
Summarizing index sounds better to my ears, but both ideas based on
"summary" are quite succint and to-the-point descriptions of what's
happening, so I vote for those.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-08-06 16:31:14 | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-08-06 16:27:45 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |