| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Strict min and max aggregate functions |
| Date: | 2016-11-20 19:37:41 |
| Message-ID: | 10750.1479670661@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> you can use composite type instead array too.
> I tried a composite type of (flag int, value anyelement) but you can't use
> anyelement in a composite type. So the aggregate function couldn't be
> polymorphic. Or, that was my conclusion after making a few attempts. Maybe
> I need to give on polymorphism if I want to get performance?
I would bet on a composite type being as slow or slower than the array
solution. You could do a quick test with a non-polymorphic definition
just to see, but I doubt it's a promising avenue.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-21 01:09:54 | Re: Feature request: separate logging |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-11-20 19:29:11 | Re: Strict min and max aggregate functions |