> > update foo > > set field = -1 * (field + 1); > > update foo > > set field = -1 * field > > where field < 0; > > > Yes, in fact I actually use option one already in the handling of sql > trees, so I'm annoyed with myself for not figuring that out. I don't > know why you'd ever use your second option ever, as it virtually > guarantees problems at a random point in your DB's growth. If you are updating a large portion of your tree, you will probably want to throw in a vacuum in between the two updates. This should reduce the bloat caused by dead tuples in both your index and table. Regards, Richard Broersma Jr.
