From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Michael Glaesemann" <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Jeremy Drake" <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions] |
Date: | 2007-08-15 01:48:34 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150708141848w34db5b0bo807e2b18e5610d65@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/14/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> TODO item?
I would say yes...array_accum is virtually an essential function when
working with arrays and the suggested array_to_set (and it's built in
cousin, _pg_expand_array) really should not be built around
generate_series when a C function is faster and will scale much
better.
array_to_set, as suggested in SQL, is something only a relative expert
with PostgreSQL could be expected to write.
Thus could generate_series be relieved from providing the only core
function for set returning functions in the documentation. IMO, this
part of the documentation could use some expansion anyways :)
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-08-15 02:13:49 | Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-08-15 01:25:48 | Re: HOT pgbench results |