David Rowley wrote:
The thing that surprised me was that string_to_array didn't perform as well.
I expected single character searches to perform a little better. I can't
think why it would be slower now.
Yes, that's strange. I tried to reproduce that here, with a CVS snapshot
before the patch,
entraut'; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] TODO item: Implement Boyer-Moore searching
(First time hacker)
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chang
David Rowley wrote:
Thanks for all the reviews and suggestions.
David, could you re-run the performance tests you ran earlier? I'm
curious to know what impact switching to the simpler loop for 1-byte
pattern had.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent
Tom Lane Wrote:
> "David Rowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've made the discussed changes. Also updated the benchmark results.
> > http://www.unixbeast.com/~fat/8.3_test_v1.3.xls
> Applied with revisions; mostly cosmetic except for one point. I
> realized after studying the code a bit more
"David Rowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've made the discussed changes. Also updated the benchmark results.
> http://www.unixbeast.com/~fat/8.3_test_v1.3.xls
Applied with revisions; mostly cosmetic except for one point. I
realized after studying the code a bit more that B-M cannot possibly
<<>>
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I looked this over a bit and was immediately confused by one thing:
> > the introductory comment says that the skip table size ought to be based
> > on the length of the haystack, which makes sense to me, but the code is
> > actually initializing it on the basis
