| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Litao Wu <litaowu(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, "Harmon S(dot) Nine" <hnine(at)netarx(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Timestamp-based indexing |
| Date: | 2004-07-27 01:53:01 |
| Message-ID: | 4105B57D.3040003@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>It seems to me that Postgres will treat it as
>>a constant.
>
>
> Yeah, that works too, though again it might burn you if used inside a
> function or prepared statement. What you're doing here is to push the
> freezing of the "now" value even further upstream, namely to initial
> parsing of the command.
What I do in my apps to get postgres to use the timestamp indexes in
some situations is to just generate the current timestamp in iso format
and then just insert it into the query as a constant, for that run of
the query.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-07-27 04:32:37 | Re: arrays and indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-26 21:40:07 | Re: Timestamp-based indexing |