Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions]

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-08-15 02:13:49
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2007-08-15 01:25:48
Subject: Re: HOT pgbench results

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group