2010/11/18 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > 2010/11/18 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> >>> wrote: >>>> i will start the review of this one... but before that sorry for >>>> suggesting this a bit later but about using UNNEST as part of the >>>> sintax? >> >>> Does for-in-array do what unnset does? >> >> Yes, which begs the question of why bother at all. AFAICS this patch >> simply allows you to replace >> >> for x in select unnest(array_value) loop >> >> with >> >> for x in unnest array_value loop >> >> (plus or minus a parenthesis or so). I do not think we need to add a >> bunch of code and create even more syntactic ambiguity (FOR loops are >> already on the hairy edge of unparsability) to save people from writing >> "select". > > this patch is semantically equal to SELECT unnest(..), but it is > evaluated as simple expression and does directly array unpacking and > iteration, - so it means this fragment is significantly >>faster<<.
Did you implement a method to be able to walk the array and detoast only the current needed data ? (I wonder because I have something like that in that garage : select array_filter(foo,'like','%bar%',10); where 10 is the limit and can be avoided, foo is the array, like is callback function, '%bar%' the parameter for the callback function for filtering results.) It will make my toy in the garage a fast race car (and probably doable in (plpg)SQL instead of C) ... -- Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
