ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> OK, here is a patch that I think incorporates all the ideas discussed
>> (including part of Mark Mielke's suggestion about optimising %_). There
>> is now no special treatment of UTF8 other than its use of a faster
>> NextChar macro.
> This is a benchmark result of 1000 loops of
> SELECT count(*) INTO cnt FROM item WHERE i_title LIKE '%BABABABABARIBA%'
> on the table with 10000 rows.
> | SQL_ASCII | LATIN1 | UTF8 | EUC_JP
> HEAD | 8017 | 8029 | 16928 | 18213
> Patched | 7899 | 7887 | 9985 | 10370 [ms]
> It improved the performance not only for UTF8, but also for other
> multi-byte encodings and a bit for single-byte encodings.
Interesting. I infer from these results that the biggest bang here comes
from abandoning CHAREQ and doing all comparisons byte-wise.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2007-06-01 13:03:51|
|Subject: Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-06-01 11:02:34|
|Subject: Re: Attempt to re-archive existing WAL logs afterrestoring from backup|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-06-01 14:17:16|
|Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch|
|Previous:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2007-06-01 05:07:29|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] like/ilike improvements|