On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:26:32 +0300 (MSK), oleg@xxxxxxxxxx (Oleg Bartunov) wrote: in <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703100824300.400@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >I don't know if you could change your schema. but I'd consider your >problem as a overlapping arrays task and use contrib/intarray for that. That's a nice piece of work, Oleg, and extremely quick. I played with it and pored over the docs but it just seems to keep coming back to the fact that all of the array type manipulations are column based as opposed to row based. In fact, this from section 8.10.5 of the docs confirms it: Tip Arrays are not sets; searching for specific array elements may be a sign of database misdesign. Consider using a separate table with a row for each item that would be an array element. This will be easier to search, and is likely to scale up better to large numbers of elements. I was able to clean up the function I originally posted removing the extraneous LOOP and I'm more than happy with the performance. What's funny is that the function as it now stands is what I initially obtained by googling, but I mistakenly added the extra loop. :-) What I finally came up with is here: <r7viv2hr16uvmsb4tti398rr8oce4e1nvm@xxxxxxx> --- Stefan Berglund
