[Devel] Patch - LCR Strip Option

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

I would say this enhancement is welcome.

My question is if we should commit the partial patches or to keep them 
pending until the whole solution is available.

regards,
bogdan

Ovidiu Sas wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As Juha mentioned it into the lcr doc (see TODO), the second query 
> should be rewritten in C.  This is my intention and I would like to do 
> it in three steps:
>
> step 1: remove the first raw query (done).
> step 2: load the lcr table into the memory.
> step 3. replace the secondary query with C code.
>
>
> I prefer to do it in three steps because because it slips easier in my 
> schedule and also it's much more easy to review small pieces of code 
> with well define functionality.
>
>
> -ovi
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Juha Heinanen wrote:
>
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
>>
>> > "SELECT %.*s.%.*s, %.*s.%.*s, %.*s.%.*s, %.*s.%.*s, %.*s.%.*s, 
>> %.*s.%.*s
>> > FROM %.*s, %.*s WHERE '%.*s' LIKE %.*s.%.*s AND '%.*s' LIKE
>> > CONCAT(%.*s.%.*s, '%%') AND %.*s.%.*s = %.*s.%.*s ORDER BY
>> > CHAR_LENGTH(%.*s.%.*s), %.*s.%.*s DESC, RAND()"
>> >
>> > I would say the patch makes sense only if it solves completely the
>> > problem....
>>
>> yes, and the real solution is to avoid the db query altogether and write
>> the code in c.  this can be done by first extending reload_gws() to load
>> also the routes to memory and then by rewriting load_gws() so that it
>> uses in-memory information only.
>>
>> -- juha
>>
>>
>