2009/3/1 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > 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.
₊1 regards Pavel Stehule > > 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 > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers