Re: ICU integration

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ICU integration
Date: 2017-01-09 20:25:36
Message-ID: 6261dcf6-5bd1-a4ce-a800-54b34d696b3e@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/7/17 10:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It occurs to me that the comparison caching stuff added by commit
> 0e57b4d8b needs to be considered here, too. When we had to copy the
> string to a temp buffer anyway, in order to add the terminating NUL
> byte expected by strcoll(), there was an opportunity to do caching of
> comparisons at little additional cost. However, since ICU offers an
> interface that you're using that doesn't require any NUL byte, there
> is a new trade-off to be considered -- swallow the cost of copying
> into our own temp buffer solely for the benefit of comparison caching,
> or don't do comparison caching. (Note that glibc had a similar
> comparison caching optimization itself at one point, built right into
> strcoll(), but it was subsequently disabled.)

That might be worth looking into, but it seems a bit daunting to
construct a benchmark specifically for this, unless we have the one that
was originally used lying around somewhere.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-01-09 20:32:44 Re: ICU integration
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-01-09 20:15:53 Re: Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE