On 16/01/13 08:04, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 07:52:56PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 01/14/2013 07:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> While testing this I noticed that integer based 'get' routines are
>>> zero based -- was this intentional? Virtually all other aspects of
>>> SQL are 1 based:
>>> postgres=# select json_get('[1,2,3]', 1);
>>> (1 row)
>>> postgres=# select json_get('[1,2,3]', 0);
>>> (1 row)
>> Yes. it's intentional. SQL arrays might be 1-based by default, but
>> arrays as zero-based. I suspect the Json-using community would not
>> thank us for being overly SQL-centric on this - and I say that as
>> someone who has always thought zero based arrays were a major design
>> mistake, responsible for countless off-by-one errors.
> Perhaps we could compromise by making arrays 0.5-based.
I think that is far to rational, perhaps the reciprocal of the golden
ratio(0.618033...) would be more appropriate?
I used to be insistent that arrays should start with 1, now I find
starting at 0 far more natural - because evrytime you start an array at
1, the computer has to subtract 1 in order to calculate the entry. Also
both Java & C are zero based.
I first learnt FORTRAN IV which is 1 based, had a shock when I was
learning Algol and found it was 0 based - many moons ago...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2013-01-15 21:35:36|
|Subject: Re: BUG #7809: Running pg_dump on slave w/ streaming
replication fails if there are unlogged tables|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-15 21:26:18|
|Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST|