From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cardinality() |
Date: | 2009-03-01 16:49:20 |
Message-ID: | 12505.1235926160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2009, at 00:52, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> We seem to have acquired a cardinality() function with almost no
>>> discussion, and it has semantics that are a bit surprising to me. I
>>> should have thought cardinality(array) would be the total number of
>.> elements in the array. Instead, it seems it is a synonym for
>>> array_length(array,1). Is that *really* what the standard says?
>> Standart just says something like:
>> cardinality (a collection):
>> - The number of elements in that collection.
The standard doesn't have multi-dimensional arrays, so it's entirely
possible that somewhere in it there is wording that makes cardinality()
equivalent to the length of the first dimension. But I concur with
Andrew that this is flat wrong when extended to m-d arrays.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-01 17:40:16 | Re: cardinality() |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-03-01 15:30:46 | Re: cardinality() |