Re: plpgsql arrays - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: plpgsql arrays
Date
Msg-id 1138.1238770111@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plpgsql arrays  (Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>)
Responses Re: plpgsql arrays  (Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>)
Re: plpgsql arrays  (Nathan Boley <npboley@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org> writes:
> 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.

Uh, no, it wouldn't.  Visually:

    L1    -------------------------
    L2    -----------
    L3    ---------------------

    R1                   --------

At L2, you'd conclude that you're done matching R1.

Intuitively, it seems like 1-D "overlaps" is a tractable enough
operator that you should be able to make something merge-like
work.  But it's more complicated than I think you realize.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql arrays
Next
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql arrays