Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 43702(at)bugs(dot)debian(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution
Date: 1999-08-31 11:56:34
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.990831155206.6807H-100000@ra
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:

> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:29:21 +0900
> From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
> To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
> Cc: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,
> 43702(at)bugs(dot)debian(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution
>
> >> I have had a request to add multi-byte support to the Debian binary
> >> packages of PostgreSQL.
> >> Since I live in England, I have personally no need of this and therefore
> >> have little understanding of the implications.
> >> If I change the packages to use multi-byte support, (UNICODE (UTF-8) is
> >> suggested as the default), will there be any detrimental effects on the
> >> fairly large parts of the world that don't need it? Should I try to
> >> provide two different packages, one with and one without MB support?
> >
> >Probably. The downside to having MB support is reduced performance and
> >perhaps functionality. If you don't need it, don't build it...
>
> Not really. I did the regression test with/without multi-byte enabled.
>
> with MB: 2:53:92 elapsed
> w/o MB: 2:52.92 elapsed
>
> Perhaps the worst case for MB would be regex ops. If you do a lot of
> regex queries, performance degration might not be neglectable.

It should be. What would be nice is to have a column-specific
MB support. But I doubt if it's possible.

>
> Load module size:
>
> with MB: 1208542
> w/o MB: 1190925
>
> (difference is 17KB)
>
> Talking about the functionality, I don't see any missing feature with
> MB comparing w/o MB. (there are some features only MB has. for
> example, SET NAMES).
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
>
> ************
>

_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Roberto Cornacchia 1999-08-31 12:05:15 optimizer pruning problem
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-08-31 09:29:21 Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution