Teodor Sigaev <teodor@xxxxxxxxx> 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-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
