On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 18:57 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Also Neil suggested investigating using a single composite type
> {int8,
> numeric} for the {N,sum(X)} transition values. This could well be a
> faster way to do this (not sure how to make it work yet... but it
> sounds
> promising...).
If that is true it implies that any fixed length array is more expensive
than using a composite type. Is there something to be gained by changing
the basic representation of arrays, rather than rewriting all uses of
them?
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com