| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making strxfrm() blobs in indexes work |
| Date: | 2014-01-31 01:04:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZR_bi_YqsYNKO7Kh2OZW47K2mmGZoQFyV5fjJsKPOiMgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> So we consider the
> appropriateness of a regular strcoll() or a strxfrm() in all contexts
> (in a generic and extensible manner, but that's essentially what we
> do). I'm not too discouraged by this restriction, because in practice
> it won't come up very often.
I meant: We consider the appropriateness of a strxfrm() + strcmp()
against the pre-strfxfrm()'d scanKey datum, when the optimization is
not in force, as against just a plain strcmp() when it is.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-01-31 01:05:22 | Re: Making strxfrm() blobs in indexes work |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-31 01:04:15 | Re: Making strxfrm() blobs in indexes work |