MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Adrian Garcia Badaracco <adrian@adriangb.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:49:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAE8z92HXNko026zBe++fXr7_1tDCfFEJyiuUEmppYvUD253U8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Faster `&&` intersection for sorted arrays
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000868ceb06232feca7"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE8z92HXNko026zBe%2B%2BfXr7_1tDCfFEJyiuUEmppYvUD253U8A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000868ceb06232feca7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I was wondering if I could do better than `&&` for sorted arrays by doing
binary search and came up with some really interesting results.
I only did a quick spin of this, an LLM generated most of the code after I
gave it the algorithm and I don't plan on using it in production (I'm going
to normalize my schema instead) but I wanted to share this in case it's
useful to anyone.

https://gist.github.com/adriangb/1b68bb2e408423ddcb90fb0136a00ba8

--000000000000868ceb06232feca7
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I was wondering if I could do better than `&amp;&amp;` for=
 sorted arrays by doing binary search and came up with some really interest=
ing results.<br>I only did a quick spin of this, an LLM generated most of t=
he code after I gave it the algorithm and I don&#39;t plan on using it in p=
roduction (I&#39;m going to normalize my schema instead) but I wanted to sh=
are this in case it&#39;s useful to anyone.<br><br><a href=3D"https://gist.=
github.com/adriangb/1b68bb2e408423ddcb90fb0136a00ba8">https://gist.github.c=
om/adriangb/1b68bb2e408423ddcb90fb0136a00ba8</a><br></div>

--000000000000868ceb06232feca7--