>> No, of course it doesn't. It appears that you didn't look at the repo or read my previous mail before you wrote
this.
>
> FFS, I *ran* some of the tests and reported on results. With you in CC.
Just checked back. So you did. I'm sorry, I made the mistake I accused you of.
But... why then did you say I hadn't provided him with individual functions, when you've seen the repo yourself? I
don'tunderstand. You knew they're there.
> What I mean is that I don't just run random code from some random github
> repository.
Sure, but surely that's not an issue when the SQL functions are also seperately provided and clearly labelled in the
repo?
Do you feel there is a difference about the trustworthiness of isolated files containing an SQL function presented in a
githubrepo, and SQL functions presented in an email?
I am not sure I can agree with that idea, I think they are both just SQL functions. The difference is that one also
offersyou a bit more if you want to check/try it.
> I do not wish to antagonise you either, so please go and look at the
>> repo before you write the next reply.
>
> Over and out.
Seems there has been a misunderstanding here and I feel I'm still missing something in what you're saying. Sorry
Andres.Let's just forget this. I don't think we disagree especially on this and I am not looking to make an enemy here.
Also, thanks for running the benchmarks to get some numbers.
Graeme.