| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: like/ilike improvements |
| Date: | 2007-05-24 18:02:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4655D33B.2050905@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure I believe the new coding for %-matching at all, and I
> certainly don't like the 100% lack of comments explaining why the
> different cases are necessary and just how they differ. In particular,
> once we've advanced more than one character, why does it still matter
> what was immediately after the %?
>
>
>
I don't understand the question. The % processing looks for a place that
matches what is immediately after the % and then tries to match the
remainder using a recursive call - so it never actually does matter. I
haven't actually changed the fundamental logic AFAIK, I have just
rearranged and optimised it some.
I admit that it takes some pondering to understand - I certainly intend
to adjust the comments once we are satisfied the code is right. It's
going to be next week now before I finish this up :-(
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-24 18:26:07 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-24 17:17:47 | Re: like/ilike improvements |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-24 18:26:07 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-24 17:17:47 | Re: like/ilike improvements |