On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 04:33, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Yeah, it's conceivable that we could implement something whereby
> >> characters with codes above some cutoff point are handled via runtime
> >> calls to iswalpha() and friends, rather than being included in the
> >> statically-constructed DFA maps.  The cutoff point could likely be a lot
> >> less than U+FFFF, too, thereby saving storage and map build time all
> >> round.
> >
> > In the meantime, I still think the caching logic is worth having, and
> > we could at least make some people happy if we selected a cutoff point
> > somewhere between U+FF and U+FFFF.  I don't have any strong ideas about
> > what a good compromise cutoff would be.  One possibility is U+7FF, which
> > corresponds to the limit of what fits in 2-byte UTF8; but I don't know
> > if that corresponds to any significant dropoff in frequency of usage.
> The problem, of course, is that this probably depends quite a bit on
> what language you happen to be using.  For some languages, it won't
> matter whether you cut it off at U+FF or U+7FF; while for others even
> U+FFFF might not be enough.  So I think this is one of those cases
> where it's somewhat meaningless to talk about frequency of usage.

Does it make sense for regexps to have collations?

Reply via email to