2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>: > On 1/27/15 4:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> 2015-01-26 23:29 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com <mailto: >> jim.na...@bluetreble.com>>: >> >> On 1/26/15 4:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> Any way to reduce the code duplication between the array and >> non-array versions? Maybe factor out the operator caching code? >> >> >> I though about it - but there is different checks, different >> result processing, different result type. >> >> I didn't find any readable and reduced form :( >> >> >> Yeah, that's why I was thinking specifically of the operator caching >> code... isn't that identical? That would at least remove a dozen lines... >> >> >> It is only partially identical - I would to use cache for array_offset, >> but it is not necessary for array_offsets .. depends how we would to modify >> current API to support externally cached data. >> > > Externally cached data?
Some from these functions has own caches for minimize access to typcache (array_map, array_cmp is example). And in first case, I am trying to push these information from fn_extra, in second case I don't do it, because I don't expect a repeated call (and I am expecting so type cache will be enough). I plan to do some benchmark to calculate if we have to do, or we can use type cache only. Pavel > > -- > Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting > Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com >
