Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: default locale considered harmful? (was Re: [GENERAL]

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>,PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: default locale considered harmful? (was Re: [GENERAL]
Date: 2003-05-31 22:18:39
Message-ID: 200305312218.h4VMIee21738@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > So, my understanding is that you would create something such as:
> > 	CREATE INDEX iix ON tab (LIKE col)
> > and that does LIKE lookups and knows how to do col LIKE 'abc%', but it
> > can't be used for >= or ORDER BY, but it can be used for equality tests?
> 
> Hm.  Right at the moment, it wouldn't be used for equality tests unless
> you spelled equality as "a ~=~ b".  I wonder whether that's necessary
> though; couldn't we dispense with that operator and use ordinary
> equality as the BTEqual member of these opclasses?  Are there any
> locales that claim that not-physically-identical strings are equal?

Let me see if I understand.  

Our default indexes will be able to do =, >, <, ORDER BY, and the
special index will be able to do LIKE, ORDER BY, and maybe equals.  Do I
have that correct?

Looking at CVS, I see the warning about non-C locales has been removed. 
Should we instead mention the new LIKE index method?

	# (Be sure to maintain the correspondence with locale_is_like_safe() in selfuncs.c.)
	if test x`pg_getlocale COLLATE` != xC && test x`pg_getlocale COLLATE` != xPOSIX; then
	    echo "This locale setting will prevent the use of indexes for pattern matching"
	    echo "operations.  If that is a concern, rerun $CMDNAME with the collation order"
	    echo "set to \"C\".  For more information see the Administrator's Guide."
	fi

Doing LIKE with single-byte encodings would be easy because it would be
only 256 compares to find the min/max char values, but that doesn't work
with multi-byte encodings, right?

This LIKE/encoding problem is a tricky one because it gives poor
performance with little warning to users.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2003-06-01 01:43:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum?
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2003-05-31 19:12:56
Subject: The Register moving to Bricolage + PostgreSQL...

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ron JohnsonDate: 2003-06-01 01:31:41
Subject: Re: Slashdot: SAP and MySQL Join Forces
Previous:From: Jason ZieglerDate: 2003-05-31 22:14:56
Subject: Re: pgAdmin3 snapshots

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group