Message-ID: <96c54fc3dde2ebaccafbd1ffa29b8be1005c8b8c.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Improve the performance of Unicode Normalization Forms.
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Alexander Borisov <lex.borisov@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers
	 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 10:20:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: <16f87504-f174-450e-93cc-2db1074522bb@gmail.com>
References: <844d3dd7-2955-4794-95d1-7f4c13cb89fc@gmail.com>
	 <4211ffd7fe154c4af693b98d78f4a3689ce8cc30.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <16f87504-f174-450e-93cc-2db1074522bb@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/96c54fc3dde2ebaccafbd1ffa29b8be1005c8b8c.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2025-06-20 at 17:51 +0300, Alexander Borisov wrote:
> I don't quite see how this compares to the implementation on Rust. In
> the link provided, they use perfect hash, which I get rid of and get
> a x2 boost.
> If you take ICU implementations in C++, I have always considered them
> slow, at least when used in C code.
> I may well run benchmarks and compare the performance of the approach
> in Postgres and ICU. But this is beyond the scope of the patches
> under
> discussion.

Are you saying that, with these patches, Postgres will offer the
fastest open-source Unicode normalization? If so, that would be very
cool.

The reason I'm asking is because, if there are multiple open source
implementations, we should either have the best one, or just borrow
another one as long as it has a suitable license (perhaps translating
to C as necessary).


Regards,
	Jeff Davis