From: | "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Tomas Vondra" <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "jian he" <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Dunstan" <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
Date: | 2023-06-24 08:33:25 |
Message-ID: | 29a71b7b-dfd5-454e-8e95-1ca4cfa0937b@app.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023, at 07:51, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> For instance, how should hashset_count() work?
>
> Given the query,
>
> SELECT hashset_count('{1,2,3,null}'::int4hashset);
>
> Should we,
>
> a) threat NULL as a distinct value and return 4?
>
> b) ignore NULL and return 3?
>
> c) return NULL? (since the presence of NULL can be thought to render
> the entire count indeterminate)
>
> I think my personal preference is (b) since it is then consistent with
> how COUNT() works.
Having thought a bit more on this matter,
I think it's better to remove hashset_count() since the semantics are not obvious,
and instead provide a hashset_cardinality() function, that would obviously
include a possible null value in the number of elements:
SELECT hashset_cardinality('{1,2,3,null}'::int4hashset);
4
SELECT hashset_cardinality('{null}'::int4hashset);
1
SELECT hashset_cardinality('{null,null}'::int4hashset);
1
SELECT hashset_cardinality('{}'::int4hashset);
0
SELECT hashset_cardinality(NULL::int4hashset);
NULL
Sounds good?
/Joel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-06-24 11:23:23 | Re: Problems with estimating OR conditions, IS NULL on LEFT JOINs |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-06-24 04:15:08 | Re: Making empty Bitmapsets always be NULL |