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_adjac
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
Florian Pflug 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 exclusive (fa
On Nov19, 2011, at 22:03 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis 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 q
Jeff Davis 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 semantics
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 sp
Jeff Davis 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
> mistake,
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
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
Florian Pflug 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 at all. The
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
