| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New array functions |
| Date: | 2003-08-28 21:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | 3F4E6F64.5050807@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Any idea of performance - is this array_aggregate(anyelement) faster,
> slower or about same than int_array_aggregate(int) ?
I haven't tested, but I'd guess for an array of any significant length
int_array_aggregate() is faster (see my other post). That's one of the
reasons I haven't advocated deprecating intagg yet.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jenny - | 2003-08-28 21:11:26 | running bdg on postgresql` |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-28 21:05:05 | Re: New array functions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-08-28 21:44:26 | Re: New array functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-28 21:05:05 | Re: New array functions |