From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New array functions |
Date: | 2003-08-28 20:52:32 |
Message-ID: | 1062103952.3132.7.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway kirjutas N, 28.08.2003 kell 21:15:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > Specifically I want to know how to replace my int_array_aggregate(int) and
> > int_array_enum(_int) calls.
>
> I have no idea what those are -- are they from contrib?
>
> You can create an aggregate to turn arbitrary datatype elements into
> arrays like this:
>
> CREATE AGGREGATE array_aggregate
> (
> BASETYPE = anyelement,
> SFUNC = array_append,
> STYPE = anyarray,
> INITCOND = '{}'
> );
Any idea of performance - is this array_aggregate(anyelement) faster,
slower or about same than int_array_aggregate(int) ?
> If int_array_enum() is supposed to take '{1,2,3}' and produce three
> rows, that function was proposed but rejected. Subsequently Peter
> Eisentraut pointed out a SQL99 syntax that does this, but I did not get
> it done for 7.4. Perhaps for 7.5.
So we got to keep intagg at least until 7.5 ...
-----------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Schoebel-Theuer | 2003-08-28 20:53:39 | Obscure: correctness of lock manager??? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-28 20:51:11 | Re: Bumping block size to 16K on FreeBSD... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-28 21:05:05 | Re: New array functions |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-08-28 20:51:09 | Re: New array functions |