* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > To throw out one more point that I think is problematic, Peter's > original email on this thread gives a bunch of examples of strxfrm() > normalization that all different in the first few bytes - but so do > the underlying strings. I *think* (but don't have time to check right > now) that on my MacOS X box, strxfrm() spits out 3 bytes of header > junk and then 8 bytes per character in the input string - so comparing > the first 8 bytes of the strxfrm()'d representation would amount to > comparing part of the first byte. If for any reason the first byte is > the same (or similar enough) on many of the input strings, then this > will probably work out to be slower rather than faster. Even if other > platforms are more space-efficient (and I think at least some of them > are), I think it's unlikely that this optimization will ever pay off > for strings that don't differ in the first 8 bytes. And there are > many cases where that could be true a large percentage of the time > throughout the input, e.g. YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS timestamps stored as > text. It seems like that the patch pessimizes those cases, though of > course there's no way to know without testing.
Portability and performance concerns were exactly what worried me as well. It was my hope/understanding that this was a clear win which was vetted by other large projects across multiple platforms. If that's actually in doubt and it isn't a clear win then I agree that we can't be trying to squeeze it in at this late date. > Now it *may well be* that after doing some research and performance > testing we will conclude that either no commonly-used platforms show > any regressions or that the regressions that do occur are discountable > in view of the benefits to more common cases to the benefits. I just > don't think mid-April is the right time to start those discussions > with the goal of a 9.4 commit; and I also don't think committing > without having those discussions is very prudent. I agree with this in concept- but I'd be willing to spend a bit of time researching it, given that it's from a well known and respected author who I trust has done much of this research already. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature