From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Locale agnostic unicode text |
Date: | 2005-01-24 14:57:02 |
Message-ID: | 87r7ka6fk1.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:42 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > This time setlocale() was needed to get the behaviour
> > > I needed (database initdb'ed to 'C', my order set to 'pl_PL',
> > > or whatever locale I need at given moment).
> > I would imagine that the performance is spectacularly awful :-(.
> > Have you benchmarked it? A large sort on a unitext column,
> > for instance, would be revealing.
Why do you persist in believing this? I sent timing results of doing a
setlocale for every record here about a year ago. Sorting on the pg_strxfrm I
posted (and Conway rewrote) was about twice as slow as sorting without using
it. So it's slow but not spectacularly awful.
This depends on having a good setlocale implementation, but glibc at least
seems to be satisfactory.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-01-24 15:28:09 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2005-01-24 11:12:24 | Re: Autotuning Group Commit |