No ~ operator for box, point

Started by Jim C. Nasbyalmost 19 years ago10 messages
#1Jim C. Nasby
jim@nasby.net

decibel=# select version();
PostgreSQL 8.3devel on i386-apple-darwin8.8.2, compiled by GCC i686-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363)

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point
LINE 1: select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';

Any reason this doesn't exist?
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

#2Merlin Moncure
mmoncure@gmail.com
In reply to: Jim C. Nasby (#1)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select version();
PostgreSQL 8.3devel on i386-apple-darwin8.8.2, compiled by GCC i686-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363)

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point
LINE 1: select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not box.
Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

merlin

#3Martijn van Oosterhout
kleptog@svana.org
In reply to: Merlin Moncure (#2)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select version();
PostgreSQL 8.3devel on i386-apple-darwin8.8.2, compiled by GCC
i686-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363)

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point
LINE 1: select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not box.
Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

I ran into this the other day too. But box ~ box does exist,
which worked for my purposes, but it did surprise me.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/

Show quoted text

From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Martijn van Oosterhout (#3)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not box.

Seems like an old oversight.

Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

~ is deprecated, "contains" is preferentially spelled @> now.

regards, tom lane

#5Jim Nasby
jim@nasby.net
In reply to: Tom Lane (#4)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not
box.

Seems like an old oversight.

Ok. If I ever get some time I'll submit a patch to bring everything
in-line (there's other missing operators as well).

Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

~ is deprecated, "contains" is preferentially spelled @> now.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

#6Bruce Momjian
bruce@momjian.us
In reply to: Jim Nasby (#5)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

Can I get a TODO on this?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Nasby wrote:

On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not
box.

Seems like an old oversight.

Ok. If I ever get some time I'll submit a patch to bring everything
in-line (there's other missing operators as well).

Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

~ is deprecated, "contains" is preferentially spelled @> now.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

#7Jim Nasby
jim@nasby.net
In reply to: Bruce Momjian (#6)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

* Add missing operators for geometric data types and operators

There are geometric data types that do not have the full suite
of geometric operators
defined; for example, box @> point does not exist.

On Jan 26, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can I get a TODO on this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Jim Nasby wrote:

On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not
box.

Seems like an old oversight.

Ok. If I ever get some time I'll submit a patch to bring everything
in-line (there's other missing operators as well).

Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

~ is deprecated, "contains" is preferentially spelled @> now.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

#8Bruce Momjian
bruce@momjian.us
In reply to: Jim Nasby (#7)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

Added to TODO:

* Add missing operators for geometric data types

Some geometric types do not have the full suite of geometric operators,
e.g. box @> point

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Nasby wrote:

* Add missing operators for geometric data types and operators

There are geometric data types that do not have the full suite
of geometric operators
defined; for example, box @> point does not exist.

On Jan 26, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can I get a TODO on this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Jim Nasby wrote:

On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:33PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On 1/25/07, Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:

decibel=# select box '((0,0),(2,2))' ~ point '(1,1)';
ERROR: operator does not exist: box ~ point

I don't see a reason, although you can do it with polygon and not
box.

Seems like an old oversight.

Ok. If I ever get some time I'll submit a patch to bring everything
in-line (there's other missing operators as well).

Also, I can't find the ~ operator defined for polygon in the
documentation, am I missing something?

~ is deprecated, "contains" is preferentially spelled @> now.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

#9Jim C. Nasby
jim@nasby.net
In reply to: Bruce Momjian (#8)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Added to TODO:

* Add missing operators for geometric data types

Some geometric types do not have the full suite of geometric operators,
e.g. box @> point

I've started looking at this, and ISTM that at least part of this could
be solved by allowing some implicit casts. Given that the geometry data
types are point, line, lseg, box, path, polygon, circle, I think the
following should be safe:

box -> polygon
lseg -> open path
polygon -> closed path

I would argue that this is similar to int2 -> int4 -> int8: a box is a
type of polygon, a polygon is a closed path (that doesn't intersect,
which needs to be added to the docs, btw), and a line segment is an open
path.

Is there any reason not to make these casts implicit? If there is,
what's the best way to go about adding operators for cases where
equivalent operators exist? (IE: @>(box,point) doesn't exist, but
@>(polygon,point) does, and should suffice for @>(box,point) with
appropriate casting)

Actually, looking at one example (@(point,box) vs @(point,poly)), part
of the reason is that it's far simpler to deal with a box than a generic
polygon.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

#10Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Jim C. Nasby (#9)
Re: No ~ operator for box, point

"Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net> writes:

Is there any reason not to make these casts implicit?

To the extent that you're trying to provide operators that should be
indexable, that won't solve the problem.

I'm unconvinced that these casts should be implicit anyway, as the types
are really considerably different than, say, int2 and int4 --- there are
no operations on int4 that "don't make sense" for an int2, the way there
are for polygon vs. box.

regards, tom lane