From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(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: | 2014-09-19 16:59:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZwQArU2hnjHb-RVot_k6udo6=JwDKWsjJiTHGnJ7WQEg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
OK, good point. So committed as-is, then, except that I rewrote the
comments, which I felt were excessively long for the amount of code.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-19 17:13:16 | Re: Minor improvement in lock.sgml |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-19 16:54:12 | Re: RLS Design |