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

Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate

From: "D'Arcy" "J(dot)M(dot)" Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz (Karel Zak - Zakkr)
Cc: sszabo(at)bigpanda(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate
Date: 1999-12-23 17:47:22
Message-ID: m121CKg-0000daC@druid.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Karel Zak - Zakkr
>  I not agree with this concept:-). 

You are not alone.

> (My problem is not write query, I know SQL and coalesce()...etc. I want 
> good understand current implementation.)
> 
> ! Why is textcat() (and other) function called if result from this 
> function is ignored, it is bad spending (my CPU is not boredom). See 
> my 'C' example in my first letter...  

This is the issue no matter which side of the debate you are on.  I
think everyone agrees that either the function should not be called
or else the result should be used if it is.  CPU is a terrible thing
to waste.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Adriaan JoubertDate: 1999-12-23 17:53:27
Subject: Index corruption
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1999-12-23 17:46:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] --with-mb=SQL_ASCII for 6.5.3 RPMs.

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