| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position |
| Date: | 2015-01-27 10:36:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCq59NtOhDnX3wj5WdvC8UcKVZkA-CEcDF1ZK=AVVxUfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-01-26 23:29 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>:
> On 1/26/15 4:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Any way to reduce the code duplication between the array and
>> non-array versions? Maybe factor out the operator caching code?
>>
>>
>> I though about it - but there is different checks, different result
>> processing, different result type.
>>
>> I didn't find any readable and reduced form :(
>>
>
> Yeah, that's why I was thinking specifically of the operator caching
> code... isn't that identical? That would at least remove a dozen lines...
It is only partially identical - I would to use cache for array_offset, but
it is not necessary for array_offsets .. depends how we would to modify
current API to support externally cached data.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-01-27 10:41:16 | Re: proposal: row_to_array function |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2015-01-27 09:56:10 | Re: a fast bloat measurement tool (was Re: Measuring relation free space) |