On 2026-09-15 Tu 8:51 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for working on this!
On Tue, 15 Sept 2026 at 14:31, Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 Tu 12:22 AM, Chao Li wrote:
The attached is my test script.
Great, thanks for the review and tests.
What do you think about continuing from where text_ascii_check() is
left? I wrote a patch for this and benchmarked with Chao's script.
Timings are v1 vs v2, not master vs v2.
# unicode_is_normalized()
* all ascii: 89.115ms | 87.803ms
* mixed: 249.239ms | 126.011ms -> improvement
* non-ascii: 1243.496ms | 1244.052ms
* late-non-ascii: 3632.410ms | 370.966ms -> improvement
# unicode_normalize_func()
* all ascii: 84.458ms | 84.636ms
* mixed: 578.684ms | 226.093ms -> improvement
* non-ascii: 3651.573ms | 3644.026ms
* late-non-ascii: 10513.861ms | 942.470ms -> improvement
# unicode_assigned()
* all ascii: 61.147ms | 60.658ms
* mixed: 124.193ms | 86.186ms -> improvement
* non-ascii: 507.130ms | 510.247ms
* late-non-ascii: 1169.617ms | 166.924ms -> improvement
Do you think these results worth the additional complexity?
Yes, I think it is - it's not that much extra. This is neat, in effect
avoiding duplicating the work.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
