Re: array_length()

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> There is a tiny problem with this implementation: It returns null for an
> empty array, not zero. This is because array_lower and/or array_upper
> return null for an empty array, which makes sense for those cases. We
> could fix this by putting a coalesce around the expression, but since
> the array functions return null for all kinds of error cases, this might
> mask other problems. Or we move to a C implementation.

Basic functionality like this shouldn't be implemented as a SQL function
anyway. People don't expect that some built-in functions should be
several orders of magnitude slower than other built-in functions of
apparently similar complexity.

regards, tom lane