From: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Date: | 2010-11-18 15:50:40 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi==LCFkKvk7UzufBgt_5JiAEkBzMBx1CwvjvAYz@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/11/18 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> i will start the review of this one... but before that sorry for
>>>>> suggesting this a bit later but about using UNNEST as part of the
>>>>> sintax?
>>>
>>>> Does for-in-array do what unnset does?
>>>
>>> Yes, which begs the question of why bother at all. AFAICS this patch
>>> simply allows you to replace
>>>
>>> for x in select unnest(array_value) loop
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>> for x in unnest array_value loop
>>>
>>> (plus or minus a parenthesis or so). I do not think we need to add a
>>> bunch of code and create even more syntactic ambiguity (FOR loops are
>>> already on the hairy edge of unparsability) to save people from writing
>>> "select".
>>
>> Pavel's performance argument is imnsho valid. arrays at present are
>> the best way to pass data around functions and any optimizations here
>> are very welcome. Given that, is there any way to mitigate your
>> concerns on the syntax side?
>
> Can we get the performance benefit any other way? I hate to think
> that it will still be slow for people using the already-supported
> syntax.
If you are able to make unnest() outputting 1st row without detoasting
last field.
I think if we have :
#define DatumGetTextPSlice(X,m,n) ((text *) PG_DETOAST_DATUM_SLICE(X,m,n))
but for array, most is done
Pavel, am I correct ?
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-18 15:52:09 | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-11-18 15:45:23 | EXPLAIN and nfiltered |