2007/8/15, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 06:47:05AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2007/8/14, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 05:38:33PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > 2007/8/14, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > TODO item? > > > > > > > > > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > > > > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > > > > > > > > I am against. It's too simple do it in SQL language. > > > > > > Why make everyone who works with arrays create a function just to do > > > this? Something that's of use to common users should be included, simple > > > or not. > > > -- > > > > Unpacking array is more SQL construct for me, than SRF function. With > > function you cannot conntrol behave of unpacking. With SQL construct I > > can > > Huh? You can do a DISTINCT or an ORDER BY on the output of a SRF.
Yes, but then you get little bit different my form :) > > > SELECT DISTINCT a(i) FROM generate_series ... remove duplicities > > SELECT a(i) FROM generate_series ORDER BY .. sorted output > > etc > > > > But I can > > > > SELECT * FROM generate_series(ARRAY[1,3,4,5,7,10]); > > > > else > > FUNCTION generate_series(anyarray) returns setof any > -- > Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
