Teodor Sigaev <teo...@sigaev.ru> writes:
>> seems to me that we ought to get rid of intarray's @> and <@ operators
>> and have the module depend on the core anyarray operators, just as we
>> have already done for = and <>. Comments?
> Agree, will do. Although built-in anyarray operators have ~N^2 behaviour
> while
> intarray's version - only N*log(N)
Really? isort() looks like a bubble sort to me.
But in any case, a pre-sort is probably actually *slower* for small
numbers of array elements. I wonder where the crossover is. In
principle we could make the core implementation do a sort when working
with a sortable datatype, but I'm unsure it's worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
