Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> Not sure why you replaced n by k?
I thought it was possible to confuse it with the "n"'s used in the
previous line to denote the graph sizes.
> the nodes are 1..n, so the adjacency list should be as well (or the
> other way round).
No, I meant them to be different. Do you think the other way is better?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
