📄 xoper.sgml
字号:
<!--$PostgreSQL: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/xoper.sgml,v 1.34 2005/11/04 23:14:02 petere Exp $--> <sect1 id="xoper"> <title>User-Defined Operators</title> <indexterm zone="xoper"> <primary>operator</primary> <secondary>user-defined</secondary> </indexterm> <para> Every operator is <quote>syntactic sugar</quote> for a call to an underlying function that does the real work; so you must first create the underlying function before you can create the operator. However, an operator is <emphasis>not merely</emphasis> syntactic sugar, because it carries additional information that helps the query planner optimize queries that use the operator. The next section will be devoted to explaining that additional information. </para> <para> <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> supports left unary, right unary, and binary operators. Operators can be overloaded;<indexterm><primary>overloading</primary><secondary>operators</secondary></indexterm> that is, the same operator name can be used for different operators that have different numbers and types of operands. When a query is executed, the system determines the operator to call from the number and types of the provided operands. </para> <para> Here is an example of creating an operator for adding two complex numbers. We assume we've already created the definition of type <type>complex</type> (see <xref linkend="xtypes">). First we need a function that does the work, then we can define the operator:<programlisting>CREATE FUNCTION complex_add(complex, complex) RETURNS complex AS '<replaceable>filename</replaceable>', 'complex_add' LANGUAGE C IMMUTABLE STRICT;CREATE OPERATOR + ( leftarg = complex, rightarg = complex, procedure = complex_add, commutator = +);</programlisting> </para> <para> Now we could execute a query like this: <screen>SELECT (a + b) AS c FROM test_complex; c----------------- (5.2,6.05) (133.42,144.95)</screen> </para> <para> We've shown how to create a binary operator here. To create unary operators, just omit one of <literal>leftarg</> (for left unary) or <literal>rightarg</> (for right unary). The <literal>procedure</> clause and the argument clauses are the only required items in <command>CREATE OPERATOR</command>. The <literal>commutator</> clause shown in the example is an optional hint to the query optimizer. Further details about <literal>commutator</> and other optimizer hints appear in the next section. </para> </sect1> <sect1 id="xoper-optimization"> <title>Operator Optimization Information</title> <para> A <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> operator definition can include several optional clauses that tell the system useful things about how the operator behaves. These clauses should be provided whenever appropriate, because they can make for considerable speedups in execution of queries that use the operator. But if you provide them, you must be sure that they are right! Incorrect use of an optimization clause can result in server process crashes, subtly wrong output, or other Bad Things. You can always leave out an optimization clause if you are not sure about it; the only consequence is that queries might run slower than they need to. </para> <para> Additional optimization clauses might be added in future versions of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. The ones described here are all the ones that release &version; understands. </para> <sect2> <title><literal>COMMUTATOR</></title> <para> The <literal>COMMUTATOR</> clause, if provided, names an operator that is the commutator of the operator being defined. We say that operator A is the commutator of operator B if (x A y) equals (y B x) for all possible input values x, y. Notice that B is also the commutator of A. For example, operators <literal><</> and <literal>></> for a particular data type are usually each others' commutators, and operator <literal>+</> is usually commutative with itself. But operator <literal>-</> is usually not commutative with anything. </para> <para> The left operand type of a commutable operator is the same as the right operand type of its commutator, and vice versa. So the name of the commutator operator is all that <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> needs to be given to look up the commutator, and that's all that needs to be provided in the <literal>COMMUTATOR</> clause. </para> <para> It's critical to provide commutator information for operators that will be used in indexes and join clauses, because this allows the query optimizer to <quote>flip around</> such a clause to the forms needed for different plan types. For example, consider a query with a WHERE clause like <literal>tab1.x = tab2.y</>, where <literal>tab1.x</> and <literal>tab2.y</> are of a user-defined type, and suppose that <literal>tab2.y</> is indexed. The optimizer cannot generate an index scan unless it can determine how to flip the clause around to <literal>tab2.y = tab1.x</>, because the index-scan machinery expects to see the indexed column on the left of the operator it is given. <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> will <emphasis>not</> simply assume that this is a valid transformation — the creator of the <literal>=</> operator must specify that it is valid, by marking the operator with commutator information. </para> <para> When you are defining a self-commutative operator, you just do it. When you are defining a pair of commutative operators, things are a little trickier: how can the first one to be defined refer to the other one, which you haven't defined yet? There are two solutions to this problem: <itemizedlist> <listitem> <para> One way is to omit the <literal>COMMUTATOR</> clause in the first operator that you define, and then provide one in the second operator's definition. Since <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> knows that commutative operators come in pairs, when it sees the second definition it will automatically go back and fill in the missing <literal>COMMUTATOR</> clause in the first definition. </para> </listitem> <listitem> <para> The other, more straightforward way is just to include <literal>COMMUTATOR</> clauses in both definitions. When <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> processes the first definition and realizes that <literal>COMMUTATOR</> refers to a nonexistent operator, the system will make a dummy entry for that operator in the system catalog. This dummy entry will have valid data only for the operator name, left and right operand types, and result type, since that's all that <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> can deduce at this point. The first operator's catalog entry will link to this dummy entry. Later, when you define the second operator, the system updates the dummy entry with the additional information from the second definition. If you try to use the dummy operator before it's been filled in, you'll just get an error message. </para> </listitem> </itemizedlist> </para> </sect2> <sect2> <title><literal>NEGATOR</></title> <para> The <literal>NEGATOR</> clause, if provided, names an operator that is the negator of the operator being defined. We say that operator A is the negator of operator B if both return Boolean results and (x A y) equals NOT (x B y) for all possible inputs x, y. Notice that B is also the negator of A. For example, <literal><</> and <literal>>=</> are a negator pair for most data types. An operator can never validly be its own negator. </para> <para> Unlike commutators, a pair of unary operators could validly be marked as each others' negators; that would mean (A x) equals NOT (B x) for all x, or the equivalent for right unary operators. </para> <para> An operator's negator must have the same left and/or right operand types as the operator to be defined, so just as with <literal>COMMUTATOR</>, only the operator name need be given in the <literal>NEGATOR</> clause. </para> <para> Providing a negator is very helpful to the query optimizer since it allows expressions like <literal>NOT (x = y)</> to be simplified into <literal>x <> y</>. This comes up more often than you might think, because <literal>NOT</> operations can be inserted as a consequence of other rearrangements. </para> <para> Pairs of negator operators can be defined using the same methods explained above for commutator pairs. </para> </sect2> <sect2> <title><literal>RESTRICT</></title> <para> The <literal>RESTRICT</> clause, if provided, names a restriction selectivity estimation function for the operator. (Note that this is a function name, not an operator name.) <literal>RESTRICT</> clauses only make sense for binary operators that return <type>boolean</>. The idea behind a restriction selectivity estimator is to guess what fraction of the rows in a table will satisfy a <literal>WHERE</literal>-clause condition of the form<programlisting>column OP constant</programlisting> for the current operator and a particular constant value. This assists the optimizer by giving it some idea of how many rows will be eliminated by <literal>WHERE</> clauses that have this form. (What happens if the constant is on the left, you may be wondering? Well, that's one of the things that <literal>COMMUTATOR</> is for...) </para> <para> Writing new restriction selectivity estimation functions is far beyond the scope of this chapter, but fortunately you can usually just use one of the system's standard estimators for many of your own operators. These are the standard restriction estimators: <simplelist> <member><function>eqsel</> for <literal>=</></member> <member><function>neqsel</> for <literal><></></member> <member><function>scalarltsel</> for <literal><</> or <literal><=</></member> <member><function>scalargtsel</> for <literal>></> or <literal>>=</></member> </simplelist> It might seem a little odd that these are the categories, but they make sense if you think about it. <literal>=</> will typically accept only a small fraction of the rows in a table; <literal><></> will typically reject only a small fraction. <literal><</> will accept a fraction that depends on where the given constant falls in the range of values for that table column (which, it just so happens, is information collected by <command>ANALYZE</command> and made available to the selectivity estimator). <literal><=</> will accept a slightly larger fraction than <literal><</> for the same comparison constant, but they're close enough to not be worth distinguishing, especially since we're not likely to do better than a rough guess anyhow. Similar remarks apply to <literal>></> and <literal>>=</>. </para> <para> You can frequently get away with using either <function>eqsel</function> or <function>neqsel</function> for
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -