| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql arrays |
| Date: | 2009-04-03 14:45:25 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.0904031543081.21772@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not unless you have sorted the inputs in some way that has more knowledge
>> than the "equal" operator represents. Otherwise you can have elements drop
>> out that might still be needed to match to a later left-hand element.
>
> Of course. You certainly have to choose a sort order that works. Sorting by
> the start field would be sufficient in this case.
Oh &^%")(!. That algorithm only finds the matches where l1.start >=
l2.start. Yeah, you're quite right.
Matthew
--
And why do I do it that way? Because I wish to remain sane. Um, actually,
maybe I should just say I don't want to be any worse than I already am.
- Computer Science Lecturer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-03 14:48:31 | Re: plpgsql arrays |
| Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-04-03 14:28:34 | Re: plpgsql arrays |