Re: text_position worst case runtime

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: text_position worst case runtime
Date: 2006-05-19 16:54:55
Message-ID: 20060519165455.GH9919@surnet.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> > Perhaps it would be best to add a seperate set of functions that use
> > boyer-moore, and reference them in appropriate places in the
> > documentation. Unless someone has a better idea on how we can find out
> > what people are actually doing in the field...
>
> You've obviously missed the point of my concern, which is code bloat.
> A parallel set of functions incorporating B-M would make things worse
> not better from that standpoint. (Unless you are proposing that someone
> do it as a separate pgfoundry project; which'd be fine with me. I'm
> just concerned about how much we buy into as core features.)

So why not just replace our code with better algorithms? We could use
Shift-Or or Shift-And which AFAIK are even better than Boyer-Moore.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc Munro 2006-05-19 16:56:08 Re: New feature proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-19 16:45:22 Re: text_position worst case runtime