Re: Built-in binning functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Built-in binning functions
Date: 2014-08-31 23:48:43
Message-ID: 22103.1409528923@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Since "bucket" is the 'verb' here (in this specific case meaning "lookup the
> supplied value in the supplied bucket definition") and "width" is a modifier
> (the bucket specification describes an equal-width structure) I suggest
> "literal_bucket(val, array[])" such that the bucket is still the verb but
> now the modifier describes a structure that is literally provided.

It's a very considerable stretch to see "bucket" as a verb here :-).
Maybe that's why the SQL committee's choice of function name seems
so unnatural (to me anyway).

I was wondering about bucket_index(), ie "get the index of the bucket
this value falls into". Or get_bucket(), or get_bucket_index() if you
like verbosity.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Johnston 2014-08-31 23:59:09 Re: Built-in binning functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-08-31 23:42:07 Re: Built-in binning functions