On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 16:38, Jonathan S. Katz <jonathan.katz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jun 29, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:53, Jeff Davis <pgsql@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 18:56 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> I looked into the mailing list archives and found a potential answer >>>> on this thread: >>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-10/msg01122.php >>>> However I wanted to see if it was still necessary that I would need >>>> the complete btree operator class to run such a query. >>> >>> Yes, the default btree operator class is used to find the equality >>> operator. Even though you have defined the operator "=", postgresql >>> doesn't rely on that meaning "equals" -- the btree operator class is >>> what imparts that meaning. >>> >>>> Are there plans to have a defined "=" operator on the point type? I >>>> can understand how the other geometric types, "=" would represent >>>> area, but AFAIK I think "=" could be safely applied on a point type >>>> (and i realize I could submit a patch for that :-) maybe depending on >>>> the resolution to this / refreshing my C...). >>> >>> The built-in geometric types haven't received a lot of attention lately. >>> Most people who use geometric data use the PostGIS extension, which is a >>> sophisticated extension that can deal with that kind of data. You might >>> want to check that out and see if it meets your needs. >>> >>> Perhaps someone is interested in bringing the built-in geometric types >>> up to speed; but I think most of the interest is moving things like this >>> out to extensions where they can be more easily be maintained by >>> interested parties. >> >> Given that they are the only ones supporting knn-gist, I would expect >> them to actually become *more* popular with 9.1 - at least until such >> time as postgis adds support for it... > > In fact that is my use-case - I will be performing nearest-neighbor lookups > (and will be running 9.1b2 on this data set shortly). However, because most > of the geospatial work is relatively straightforward, I didn't want to use > PostGIS for this application. But that might change in the near future > depending on the requirements. > > But for now tasks like ensuing uniqueness amongst points are slightly more > difficult. My current solution is breaking out the (x,y) coords into > different columns Have you tried using an exclusion constraint? Not entirely sure, but I think that might work. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
