Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Hallgren
Subject Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()?
Date
Msg-id 4423970D.9040608@tada.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()?  (Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Tim Allen <tim@proximity.com.au> writes:
>   
>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>     
>>> The position function must look for 'ch' everywhere in the string so 
>>> there's no way it can use an index.
>>>       
>
>   
>> I think the '= 0' bit is what Chris was suggesting could be the basis 
>> for an optimisation.
>>     
>
> Yeah.  AFAICS the transformation Chris suggested is valid.  I'm really
> dubious that it's worth expending planner cycles to look for it though.
> LIKE is something that everybody and his brother uses, but who uses this
> position()=0 locution?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>   
The documentation says: position('om' in 'Thomas') == 3 so i assumed 
that the returned index was 1-based and that a zero meant 'not found'. 
If I'm wrong ,perhaps the docs need to be updated?

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()?
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Worthwhile optimisation of position()?