From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: like/ilike improvements |
Date: | 2007-05-22 16:30:37 |
Message-ID: | 46531AAD.9030209@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> ... It turns out (according to the analysis) that the
>> only time we actually need to use NextChar is when we are matching an
>> "_" in a like/ilike pattern.
>>
>
> I thought we'd determined that advancing bytewise for "%" was also risky,
> in two cases:
>
> 1. Multibyte character set that is not UTF8 (more specifically, does not
> have a guarantee that first bytes and not-first bytes are distinct)
>
I will review - I thought we had ruled that out.
Which non-UTF8 multi-byte charset would be best to test with?
> 2. "_" immediately follows the "%".
>
>
>
The patch in fact calls NextChar in this case.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-22 16:51:51 | Re: like/ilike improvements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-22 16:12:51 | Re: like/ilike improvements |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-22 16:51:51 | Re: like/ilike improvements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-22 16:12:51 | Re: like/ilike improvements |