Re: like/ilike improvements

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: like/ilike improvements
Date: 2007-05-24 18:02:35
Message-ID: 4655D33B.2050905@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure I believe the new coding for %-matching at all, and I
> certainly don't like the 100% lack of comments explaining why the
> different cases are necessary and just how they differ. In particular,
> once we've advanced more than one character, why does it still matter
> what was immediately after the %?
>
>
>

I don't understand the question. The % processing looks for a place that
matches what is immediately after the % and then tries to match the
remainder using a recursive call - so it never actually does matter. I
haven't actually changed the fundamental logic AFAIK, I have just
rearranged and optimised it some.

I admit that it takes some pondering to understand - I certainly intend
to adjust the comments once we are satisfied the code is right. It's
going to be next week now before I finish this up :-(

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-05-24 18:26:07 Re: Concurrent psql patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-05-24 17:17:47 Re: like/ilike improvements

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-05-24 18:26:07 Re: Concurrent psql patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-05-24 17:17:47 Re: like/ilike improvements