Re: Proposal to introduce a shuffle function to intarray extension

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Seems OK for a worst case. It must still be a lot faster than doing
> it in SQL. Now I wonder what the exact requirements would be to
> dispatch to a faster version that would handle int4.

I find it impossible to believe that it's worth micro-optimizing
shuffle() to that extent. Now, maybe doing something in that line
in deconstruct_array and construct_array would be worth our time,
as that'd benefit a pretty wide group of functions.

regards, tom lane