| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: orderRules() now a bad idea? |
| Date: | 2002-10-17 04:21:16 |
| Message-ID: | 6318.1034828476@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
>> be numeric byte-code order.
>> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
>> I suppose, except perhaps speed.
> But how will this work when we have per-column/datum collation order?
> And what about languages that don't have any useful collation order for
> their alphabets (far east)? ISTM that a globally viable feature of this
> sort would have to sort by something numeric.
I'm confused; are you saying that NAME's sort behavior is good as-is?
If not, what would you have it do differently?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-10-17 04:46:19 | Re: "COPY FROM" recognize \xDD sequence - addition to |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-17 04:05:51 | Re: PL/Perl and Perl 5.8 |