In article <1075736677.640811_at_yasure>, Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> One other thing... tranditional still seems to be setup for SSN's, not phone
>> numbers... it could be that one reason it's so much faster is because it's
>> failing the test (incorrectly) earlier.
>
>Good catch. The new number is 69 in 9i and I'll recheck the 10g
>number later today.
To be fair, it should be noted that the test results are "worst case" for the
traditional routine (and possibly owa match and regexp?) because there is no
invalid data being tested--though I think this would be rather difficult to do
without a "real world" dataset.
Received on Tue Feb 03 2004 - 08:37:22 CST
