Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate
D'Arcy Cain <darcy@druid.net>
From: "D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy@druid.net>
To: zakkr@zf.jcu.cz (Karel Zak - Zakkr)
Cc: sszabo@bigpanda.com, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 1999-12-23T17:47:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Karel Zak - Zakkr
> I not agree with this concept:-).
You are not alone.
> (My problem is not write query, I know SQL and coalesce()...etc. I want
> good understand current implementation.)
>
> ! Why is textcat() (and other) function called if result from this
> function is ignored, it is bad spending (my CPU is not boredom). See
> my 'C' example in my first letter...
This is the issue no matter which side of the debate you are on. I
think everyone agrees that either the function should not be called
or else the result should be used if it is. CPU is a terrible thing
to waste.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.