I wrote: > The standard doesn't have multi-dimensional arrays, so it's entirely > possible that somewhere in it there is wording that makes cardinality() > equivalent to the length of the first dimension. But I concur with > Andrew that this is flat wrong when extended to m-d arrays.
I poked around in the SQL:2008 draft a bit. AFAICT the most precise statement about cardinality() is in 6.27 <numeric value function>: <cardinality expression> ::= CARDINALITY<left paren> <collection value expression> <right paren> 7) The result of <cardinality expression> is the number of elements of the result of the <collection value expression>. Now the standard is only considering 1-D arrays, but I fail to see any way that it could be argued that the appropriate reading of "number of elements" for a multi-D array is the length of the first dimension. So I think Andrew is right and we need to fix our implementation of cardinality() while we still can. 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