From: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tim Allen <tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()? |
Date: | 2006-03-24 06:51:57 |
Message-ID: | 4423970D.9040608@tada.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Tim Allen <tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>
>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>
>>> The position function must look for 'ch' everywhere in the string so
>>> there's no way it can use an index.
>>>
>
>
>> I think the '= 0' bit is what Chris was suggesting could be the basis
>> for an optimisation.
>>
>
> Yeah. AFAICS the transformation Chris suggested is valid. I'm really
> dubious that it's worth expending planner cycles to look for it though.
> LIKE is something that everybody and his brother uses, but who uses this
> position()=0 locution?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
The documentation says: position('om' in 'Thomas') == 3 so i assumed
that the returned index was 1-based and that a zero meant 'not found'.
If I'm wrong ,perhaps the docs need to be updated?
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-03-24 06:58:54 | Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-24 06:48:18 | Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()? |