At Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:06:28 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > With those points in mind and thinking more broadly, I'd like to try harder
> > on recomposition. Even several times faster, recomposition is still orders
> > of magnitude slower than ICU, as measured by Daniel Verite [1].
>
> Huh. Has anyone looked into how they do it?
I'm not sure it is that, but it would be that.. It uses separate
tables for decomposition and composition pointed from a trie?
I think I've seen a trie recommended somewhere, maybe the official website. That said, I was able to get the hash working for recomposition (split into a separate patch, and both of them now leave frontend alone), and I'm pleased to say it's 50-75x faster than linear search in simple tests. I'd be curious how it compares to ICU now. Perhaps Daniel Verite would be interested in testing again? (CC'd)
select count(normalize(t, NFC)) from (
select md5(i::text) as t from
generate_series(1,100000) as i
) s;
master patch
18800ms 257ms
select count(normalize(t, NFC)) from (
select repeat(U&'\00E4\00C5\0958\00F4\1EBF\3300\1FE2\3316\2465\322D', i % 3 + 1) as t from
generate_series(1,100000) as i
) s;
master patch
13000ms 254ms
--
