Re: Curious unnest behavior - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Patrick Krecker
Subject Re: Curious unnest behavior
Date
Msg-id CAK2mJFOmpSMS8YmiVwBEPpby6na3YqME_ON9=UYR9CwXfabQHg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Curious unnest behavior  (Jeff Trout <threshar@real.jefftrout.com>)
List pgsql-general
I have to say, this seems straightforward to me.  An array with N elements gets N rows in the result set.  I'm curious what other behavior would be more reasonable.


On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Jeff Trout <threshar@real.jefftrout.com> wrote:
I just ran into an interesting thing with unnest and empty arrays.

create table x (
        a int,
        b int[]
);

insert into x(a,b) values (1, '{}');
insert into x(a,b) values (1, '{}');
insert into x(a,b) values (1, '{}');

select a, b from x;
select a, unnest(b) from x;

insert into x(a,b) values (2, '{5,6}');
select a, unnest(b) from x;

drop table x;

gives me:
CREATE TABLE
INSERT 0 1
INSERT 0 1
INSERT 0 1
 a | b
---+----
 1 | {}
 1 | {}
 1 | {}
(3 rows)

 a | unnest
---+--------
(0 rows)

INSERT 0 1
 a | unnest
---+--------
 2 |      5
 2 |      6
(2 rows)

DROP TABLE

I can understand the likely reasoning behind the behavior but perhaps a note in the documentation about it might be of use for others that may get bit by this functionality.  (especially given the structure of the query, had I been doing select * from unnest(arr) that would be more intuitive, but given the query structure of select with no where the results can be surprising.)

thanks

--
Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>




--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jose Martinez
Date:
Subject: Unable to reload postgresql.conf without restarting
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Unable to reload postgresql.conf without restarting