db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mamta Satoor" <msat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Collation implementation WAS Re: Should COLLATION attribute related code go in BasicDatabase?
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:20:11 GMT
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?

thanks,
Mamta


On 3/15/07, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Mike Matrigali wrote:
> > I think I am missing/not understanding your direction.
> >
> > are there still 4 new types?
>
> No, collation becomes an attribute of the existing character types just
> like length and nullability are.
>
> Dan.
>
>

Mime
View raw message