Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions]
Date
Msg-id b42b73150708141848w34db5b0bo807e2b18e5610d65@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions]  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions]  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions]  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 8/14/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> TODO item?

I would say yes...array_accum is virtually an essential function when
working with arrays and the suggested array_to_set (and it's built in
cousin, _pg_expand_array) really should not be built around
generate_series when a C function is faster and will scale much
better.

array_to_set, as suggested in SQL, is something only a relative expert
with PostgreSQL could be expected to write.

Thus could generate_series be relieved from providing the only core
function for set returning functions in the documentation.  IMO, this
part of the documentation could use some expansion anyways :)

merlin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: HOT pgbench results
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes