On 09/06/2013 01:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Quan Zongliang quanzongli...@gmail.com wrote:
I think of a new idea.
Add a compare method column to pg_collation.
Every collation has its own compare function or null.
When function varstr_cmp is called, if specified
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Quan Zongliang quanzongli...@gmail.com wrote:
Understood.
I just try to speed up text compare, not redesign locale.
Do you have a plan to do this?
Not any time soon, anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Quan Zongliang quanzongli...@gmail.com wrote:
I think of a new idea.
Add a compare method column to pg_collation.
Every collation has its own compare function or null.
When function varstr_cmp is called, if specified collation
has compare function, call it
On 07/23/2013 09:42 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
(Replying on phone, please forgive bad quoting)
Isn't this pretty much what adopting ICU is supposed to give us? OS-independent
collations?
I'd be interested in seeing the rest data for this performance report, partly
as I'd like to see how ICU
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
klep...@svana.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:34:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I pretty much lost interest in ICU upon reading that they use UTF-16
as their internal format.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:34:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I pretty much lost interest in ICU upon reading that they use UTF-16
as their internal format.
http://userguide.icu-project.org/strings#TOC-Strings-in-ICU
The UTF-8 support has been steadily improving:
For example,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing strxfrm once for each datum and then just strcmp for
each
(Replying on phone, please forgive bad quoting)
Isn't this pretty much what adopting ICU is supposed to give us? OS-independent
collations?
I'd be interested in seeing the rest data for this performance report, partly
as I'd like to see how ICU collations would compare when ICU is crudely
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
(Replying on phone, please forgive bad quoting)
Isn't this pretty much what adopting ICU is supposed to give us?
OS-independent collations?
Yes.
I'd be interested in seeing the rest data for this performance report,
On 07/23/2013 09:42 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
(Replying on phone, please forgive bad quoting)
Isn't this pretty much what adopting ICU is supposed to give us? OS-independent
collations?
Yes, we need OS-independent collations.
I'd be interested in seeing the rest data for this performance
On 07/22/2013 12:17 PM, Quan Zongliang wrote:
Hi hackers,
I tried to improve performance when database is Chinese.
Under openSUSE, create index on table with 54996 rows
locale=C, 140ms
locale=zh_CN, 985ms
I think the function strcoll() of Linux is too slow.
So, I made a new utf8 to
On 07/22/2013 03:54 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:17 PM, Quan Zongliang wrote:
Hi hackers,
I tried to improve performance when database is Chinese.
Under openSUSE, create index on table with 54996 rows
locale=C, 140ms
locale=zh_CN, 985ms
I think the function strcoll() of Linux is
On 7/22/13 3:54 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
It might be worth looking at gcc's strcoll() implementation. See if it
performs better when you use the latest gcc, and if not try to improve
gcc's strcoll() .
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing strxfrm once for each datum and then just strcmp for
each comparison. That is effectively equivalent to what the proposal
On 07/22/2013 12:49 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing strxfrm once for each datum and then just strcmp for
each comparison. That is
15 matches
Mail list logo
