On 22.03.2013 02:05, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Well, no.<@ is not a btree-indexable operator.
>
> Yes, but it's equivalent to ( ( a>= b1 or b1 is null ) and ( a< b2 or
> b2 is null ) ), which *is* btree-indexable and can use an index. So it
> seems like the kind of optimization we could eventually make.
Yeah. The sort order of <@ is the same as regular b-tree, so it should
be possible. In fact, nothing stops you from creating the suitable
operator and b-tree support functions. See attached patch for int4, but
the same should work for timestamptz.
We should do this automatically. Or am I missing something?
- Heikki
