Thread

1. Arrays are sorted when using intarray subtraction operator

   Casey & Gina <cg@osss.net> — 2024-06-04T20:00:44Z

   I've noticed that when using the `-` operator provided by the intarray extension, it appears to sort the results.  Although I want the results sorted, I'd expect to have to additionally use the `sort` function it provides, as this behavior isn't documented.  I don't want to rely on undocumented behavior, although it would simplify my queries to do so.  Is the documentation lacking in this detail, or is it an unintended bug?
   
   Thanks,
   -- 
   Casey
   
   
   

2. Re: Arrays are sorted when using intarray subtraction operator

   David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2024-06-04T20:30:31Z

   On Tuesday, June 4, 2024, Casey & Gina <cg@osss.net> wrote:
   
   > I've noticed that when using the `-` operator provided by the intarray
   > extension, it appears to sort the results.  Although I want the results
   > sorted, I'd expect to have to additionally use the `sort` function it
   > provides, as this behavior isn't documented.  I don't want to rely on
   > undocumented behavior, although it would simplify my queries to do so.  Is
   > the documentation lacking in this detail, or is it an unintended bug?
   >
   
   I would consider it an undocumented effect as to what the resultant array
   with elements removed looks like.  If you need to ensure you have a sorted
   array use the sort function.
   
   David J.
   

3. Re: Arrays are sorted when using intarray subtraction operator

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2024-06-04T20:38:04Z

   "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
   > On Tuesday, June 4, 2024, Casey & Gina <cg@osss.net> wrote:
   >> I've noticed that when using the `-` operator provided by the intarray
   >> extension, it appears to sort the results.  Although I want the results
   >> sorted, I'd expect to have to additionally use the `sort` function it
   >> provides, as this behavior isn't documented.  I don't want to rely on
   >> undocumented behavior, although it would simplify my queries to do so.  Is
   >> the documentation lacking in this detail, or is it an unintended bug?
   
   > I would consider it an undocumented effect as to what the resultant array
   > with elements removed looks like.
   
   It's an implementation detail: sorting the values makes it easy to
   match up duplicates.
   
   > If you need to ensure you have a sorted
   > array use the sort function.
   
   Yeah.  While I'd judge the implementation pretty unlikely to change,
   feel free to add an explicit sort call if you feel uncomfortable
   about relying on it.
   
   			regards, tom lane