Re: array_length(anyarray)
От | Marko Tiikkaja |
---|---|
Тема | Re: array_length(anyarray) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52DBBA5C.3030307@joh.to обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: array_length(anyarray) (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: array_length(anyarray)
Re: array_length(anyarray) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/19/14, 9:12 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 18 January 2014 03:07, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote: >> Here's the patch as promised. Thoughts? >> > > A couple of points: > > The answer for empty (zero dimensional) arrays is wrong --- you need > special case handling for this case to return 0. How embarrassing. I don't know why I removed that check or how I didn't catch the clearly wrong answer in the test output. > In fact why not > simply use ArrayGetNItems()? Even better. Changed. > In the docs, in the table of array functions, I think it would > probably be useful to make the entry for array_length say "see also > cardinality", otherwise people might just stop reading there. I > suspect that in over 90% of cases, cardinality will be the more > appropriate function to use rather than array_length. I don't see this as a huge improvement, but even worse, I don't see a way to naturally fit it into the description. New version attached, without the doc change. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: