From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Date: | 2014-09-16 20:55:22 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSPtZbWPamZOstG0ggirxn4-42g6HRSsjxi8kMN==4dpw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Even though our testing seems to indicate that the memcmp() is
> basically free, I think it would be good to make the effort to avoid
> doing memcmp() and then strcoll() and then strncmp(). Seems like it
> shouldn't be too hard.
Really? The tie-breaker for the benefit of locales like hu_HU uses
strcmp(), not memcmp(). It operates on the now-terminated copies of
strings. There is no reason to think that the strings must be the same
size for that strcmp(). I'd rather only do the new opportunistic
"memcmp() == 0" thing when len1 == len2. And I wouldn't like to have
to also figure out that it's safe to use the earlier result, because
as it happens len1 == len2, or any other such trickery.
The bug fix that added the strcmp() tie-breaker was committed in 2005.
PostgreSQL had locale support for something like 8 years prior, and it
took that long for us to notice the problem. I would suggest that
makes the case for doing anything else pretty marginal. In the bug
report at the time, len1 != len2 anyway.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-09-16 21:00:46 | Re: Sequence Access Method WIP |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-16 20:45:10 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |