I wrote:
Attached is a draft patch for this. It passes regression tests but I've
not tried to exercise it with a canonical function that actually does
something different.
I hacked up int4range_canonical to produce []-style ranges, and
confirmed that this version of range_adjacent seems to
I wrote:
I did a little bit of performance testing on an x86_64 machine (Fedora 14),
and found that the time to execute a clause like
WHERE int4range(1,2) -|- int4range(x, 1000)
(x being an integer Var) grows from 0.37 us to 0.56 us if we adopt the
patched version of range_adjacent.
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
More formally, let there be two arbitrary ranges
a,b,i_a,i_b
c,d,i_c,i_d
where the first two parameters are the lower respectively upper bound, and
the last two are booleans saying whether the lower respectively upper bound
is inclusive (true) or
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 14:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, probably not. However, I don't like the idea of
'(3,4)'::int4range throwing an error, as it currently does, because it
seems to require the application to have quite a lot of knowledge of the
range semantics to avoid having errors
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 14:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, probably not. However, I don't like the idea of
'(3,4)'::int4range throwing an error, as it currently does, because it
seems to require the application to have quite a lot of knowledge of the
range
On Nov19, 2011, at 22:03 , Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 14:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, probably not. However, I don't like the idea of
'(3,4)'::int4range throwing an error, as it currently does, because it
seems to require the application to
While thinking about range_cmp_bounds, I started to think that the way
range_adjacent works is wrong.
range_adjacent() depends on the bounds of two ranges to match up, such
that the boundary values are equal, but one is exclusive and the other
inclusive, and one is a lower bound and the other an
On Nov18, 2011, at 09:25 , Jeff Davis wrote:
While thinking about range_cmp_bounds, I started to think that the way
range_adjacent works is wrong.
range_adjacent() depends on the bounds of two ranges to match up, such
that the boundary values are equal, but one is exclusive and the other
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
...This definition does not depend on any specific canonical form of ranges,
only on the canonicalize function's ability to detect empty ranges.
Hmm, well, now that you mention it, I don't think the current canonical
functions handle empty ranges very nicely
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 10:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
regression=# select int4range(4,4,'(]');
ERROR: range lower bound must be less than or equal to range upper bound
regression=# select int4range(4,4,'()');
ERROR: range lower bound must be less than or equal to range upper bound
Would it
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 13:32 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
That information, however, *is* already contained in the canonical
functions, because those function know that (2,3) are empty as an integer
range, but non-empty as a float range.
Very good point. Thank you.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 10:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Would it be better for them to silently transform such cases to empty?
I wouldn't like to extend that to int4range(4,3), however. When the
upper bound is less than the lower bound, it's almost certainly a
12 matches
Mail list logo
