Re: [SQL] partial indexes (indices)

=?iso-8859-2?Q?Daniel_P=E9der?= <dpeder@infoset.cz> writes:

YES!
that's what I'am looking for. But does anybody know HOW ?

Allows you to index only part of a table. Don't know any more.

It seems to be disabled in gram.y for some reason (no WHERE clause in
CREATE INDEX anymore), which is odd since there's still an awful lot of
code to support the feature elsewhere.

Anyone know who took this out and why?

regards, tom lane

From bouncefilter Thu Sep 23 17:39:58 1999
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA39960
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>;
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15852;
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:38:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>,
pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, Jan Wieck <jwieck@debis.com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] VIEW definitions broken in 6.5.0
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:07:18 -0400 (EDT)
<199909231907.PAA23863@candle.pha.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:38:36 -0400
Message-ID: <15850.938122716@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

The problem is that table qualifications are left
off the fieldnames in both the SELECT clause and the WHERE clause.

Yes, that was reported and fixed a while ago. It's definitely in
current and 6.5.2, not sure about 6.5.1.

regards, tom lane

From bouncefilter Thu Sep 23 17:44:20 1999
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA40650
for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>;
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:43:08 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15881;
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:28:51 +0200 (MET DST)
<m11UAnj-0003kzC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:42:30 -0400
Message-ID: <15879.938122950@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:

Shouldn't a function returning a SET of tuples cause a proper
join?

Join on what? The semantics suggested by the existing regress tests
(for lack of any actual documentation :-() certainly appear to be
straight Cartesian product.

Anyway, I have no intention of spending more time on this feature now.
There's lots of higher-priority problems...

regards, tom lane