Re: Proposal to introduce a shuffle function to intarray extension

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Seems OK for a worst case.  It must still be a lot faster than doing
> it in SQL.  Now I wonder what the exact requirements would be to
> dispatch to a faster version that would handle int4.

I find it impossible to believe that it's worth micro-optimizing
shuffle() to that extent.  Now, maybe doing something in that line
in deconstruct_array and construct_array would be worth our time,
as that'd benefit a pretty wide group of functions.

            regards, tom lane