From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostGreSql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: array_length(anyarray) |
Date: | 2014-01-19 11:43:24 |
Message-ID: | 52DBBA5C.3030307@joh.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/19/14, 9:12 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 18 January 2014 03:07, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
>> Here's the patch as promised. Thoughts?
>>
>
> A couple of points:
>
> The answer for empty (zero dimensional) arrays is wrong --- you need
> special case handling for this case to return 0.
How embarrassing. I don't know why I removed that check or how I didn't
catch the clearly wrong answer in the test output.
> In fact why not
> simply use ArrayGetNItems()?
Even better. Changed.
> In the docs, in the table of array functions, I think it would
> probably be useful to make the entry for array_length say "see also
> cardinality", otherwise people might just stop reading there. I
> suspect that in over 90% of cases, cardinality will be the more
> appropriate function to use rather than array_length.
I don't see this as a huge improvement, but even worse, I don't see a
way to naturally fit it into the description.
New version attached, without the doc change.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
cardinality_v4.patch | text/plain | 5.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2014-01-19 12:04:40 | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |
Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2014-01-19 10:10:12 | Re: GiST support for inet datatypes |