Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array

From: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array
Date: 2010-11-18 15:50:40
Message-ID: AANLkTi==LCFkKvk7UzufBgt_5JiAEkBzMBx1CwvjvAYz@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/11/18 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> i will start the review of this one... but before that sorry for
>>>>> suggesting this a bit later but about using UNNEST as part of the
>>>>> sintax?
>>>
>>>> Does for-in-array do what unnset does?
>>>
>>> Yes, which begs the question of why bother at all.  AFAICS this patch
>>> simply allows you to replace
>>>
>>>        for x in select unnest(array_value) loop
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>        for x in unnest array_value loop
>>>
>>> (plus or minus a parenthesis or so).  I do not think we need to add a
>>> bunch of code and create even more syntactic ambiguity (FOR loops are
>>> already on the hairy edge of unparsability) to save people from writing
>>> "select".
>>
>> Pavel's performance argument is imnsho valid. arrays at present are
>> the best way to pass data around functions and any optimizations here
>> are very welcome.  Given that, is there any way to mitigate your
>> concerns on the syntax side?
>
> Can we get the performance benefit any other way?  I hate to think
> that it will still be slow for people using the already-supported
> syntax.

If you are able to make unnest() outputting 1st row without detoasting
last field.

I think if we have :
#define DatumGetTextPSlice(X,m,n) ((text *) PG_DETOAST_DATUM_SLICE(X,m,n))
but for array, most is done

Pavel, am I correct ?

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
Cédric Villemain               2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2010-11-18 15:52:09 Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2010-11-18 15:45:23 EXPLAIN and nfiltered