db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Collation implementation WAS Re: Should COLLATION attribute related code go in BasicDatabase?
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:21:15 GMT


Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Mamta Satoor wrote:
> 
>> Dan, I am responding to this without thinking about a whole lot but 
>> wanted to put it out. With this scheme of putting collation inside the 
>> existing character type, are we going to impact the performance of 
>> Derby's default collation which is UCS_BASIC? The goal from the 
>> beginning has been to leave current SQLChar implementation as unaware 
>> of the new collation requirement as possible. It's possible that your 
>> suggestion does take that into account but I thought I would ask the 
>> question if this approach is going to impact the performance of 
>> existing Pre 10.3 upgraded to 10.3 or new 10.3 databases created with 
>> default collation?
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "putting the collation inside the existing 
> character type", but I think there will be no performance impact on 
> SQLChar, I'm assuming all the setup is done when the activation is 
> initialized. It's just flipping which runtime class does the comparisons.
> 
Again I think both mamta and I did not understand that your proposal 
still contained 4 new classes which will extend the 4 basic char classes 
and allow the flipping at runtime.

> Dan.
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message