| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Built-in binning functions |
| Date: | 2014-08-31 23:48:43 |
| Message-ID: | 22103.1409528923@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Since "bucket" is the 'verb' here (in this specific case meaning "lookup the
> supplied value in the supplied bucket definition") and "width" is a modifier
> (the bucket specification describes an equal-width structure) I suggest
> "literal_bucket(val, array[])" such that the bucket is still the verb but
> now the modifier describes a structure that is literally provided.
It's a very considerable stretch to see "bucket" as a verb here :-).
Maybe that's why the SQL committee's choice of function name seems
so unnatural (to me anyway).
I was wondering about bucket_index(), ie "get the index of the bucket
this value falls into". Or get_bucket(), or get_bucket_index() if you
like verbosity.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2014-08-31 23:59:09 | Re: Built-in binning functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-08-31 23:42:07 | Re: Built-in binning functions |