Обсуждение: Re: Speed up ICU case conversion by using ucasemap_utf8To*()

On Fri, 2024-12-20 at 06:20 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> SELECT count(upper) FROM (SELECT upper(('Kålhuvud ' || i) COLLATE
> "sv-SE-x-icu") FROM generate_series(1, 1000000) i);
>
> master:  ~540 ms
> Patched: ~460 ms
> glibc:   ~410 ms

It looks like you are opening and closing the UCaseMap object each
time. Why not save it in pg_locale_t? That should speed it up even more
and hopefully beat libc.


Also, to support older ICU versions consistently, we need to fix up the
locale name to support "und"; cf. pg_ucol_open(). Perhaps factor out
that logic?

Regards,
    Jeff Davis

On 12/20/24 8:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-12-20 at 06:20 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> SELECT count(upper) FROM (SELECT upper(('Kålhuvud ' || i) COLLATE
>> "sv-SE-x-icu") FROM generate_series(1, 1000000) i);
>>
>> master:  ~540 ms
>> Patched: ~460 ms
>> glibc:   ~410 ms
> 
> It looks like you are opening and closing the UCaseMap object each
> time. Why not save it in pg_locale_t? That should speed it up even more
> and hopefully beat libc.

Fixed. New benchmarks are:

SELECT count(upper) FROM (SELECT upper(('Kålhuvud ' || i) COLLATE 
"sv-SE-x-icu") FROM generate_series(1, 1000000) i);

master:  ~570 ms
Patched: ~340 ms
glibc:   ~400 ms

So it does indeed seem like we got a further speedup and now are faster 
than glibc.

> Also, to support older ICU versions consistently, we need to fix up the
> locale name to support "und"; cf. pg_ucol_open(). Perhaps factor out
> that logic?

Fixed.

Andreas

Hi Andreas,

On the mailing list, I've noticed this patch. I tested its functionality and it works really well. I have a few minor,
non-criticalcomments to share.
 
In the `pg_ucasemap_open` function, the error message `casemap lookup failed:` doesn't seem ideal. This is because
we'reopening the `UCaseMap` here, rather than performing a "lookup" operation.
 
In the comment `Additional makes sure we get the right options for case folding.`, the word Additional seems
inappropriate— `Additionally` would be a better replacement.
 


--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org

On 12/31/25 3:36 AM, zengman wrote:
> On the mailing list, I've noticed this patch. I tested its functionality and it works really well. I have a few
minor,non-critical comments to share.
 

Thanks for trying it out!

> In the `pg_ucasemap_open` function, the error message `casemap lookup failed:` doesn't seem ideal. This is because
we'reopening the `UCaseMap` here, rather than performing a "lookup" operation.
 

Fixed.

> In the comment `Additional makes sure we get the right options for case folding.`, the word Additional seems
inappropriate— `Additionally` would be a better replacement.
 
Fixed.

Andreas

Hi,

Here is a version 4 of the patch which uses the fact that we have method 
tables to remove one level of indirection. I am not sure the extra lines 
of codes are worth it but on the other hand despite 40 more lines the 
code became easier to read to me. What do you think?

Andreas

> Here is a version 4 of the patch which uses the fact that we have method
> tables to remove one level of indirection. I am not sure the extra lines
> of codes are worth it but on the other hand despite 40 more lines the
> code became easier to read to me. What do you think?

I don't have any major objections, but I noticed a few minor details that might need a bit more tweaking.

`signficant`  -> `significant`
`realtively`  ->  `relatively`
`if (status != U_BUFFER_OVERFLOW_ERROR && U_FAILURE(status))` -> `if (U_FAILURE(status) && status !=
U_BUFFER_OVERFLOW_ERROR)`


--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org

On 1/3/26 4:05 AM, zengman wrote:
> I don't have any major objections, but I noticed a few minor details that might need a bit more tweaking.
> 
> `signficant`  -> `significant`
> `realtively`  ->  `relatively`
> `if (status != U_BUFFER_OVERFLOW_ERROR && U_FAILURE(status))` -> `if (U_FAILURE(status) && status !=
U_BUFFER_OVERFLOW_ERROR)`
Fixed, thanks!

Andreas

On Sat, 2026-01-03 at 04:12 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 1/3/26 4:05 AM, zengman wrote:
> > I don't have any major objections, but I noticed a few minor
> > details that might need a bit more tweaking.
> >
> > `signficant`  -> `significant`
> > `realtively`  ->  `relatively`
> > `if (status != U_BUFFER_OVERFLOW_ERROR && U_FAILURE(status))` ->
> > `if (U_FAILURE(status) && status != U_BUFFER_OVERFLOW_ERROR)`
> Fixed, thanks!

Committed, thank you!

Regards,
    Jeff Davis