Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Date: 2018-12-20 01:01:46
Message-ID: 13958.1545267706@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> Is there any particular reason not to go further and use a perfect hash
> function for the lookup, rather than binary search?

Tooling? I seem to recall having looked at gperf and deciding that it
pretty much sucked, so it's not real clear to me what we would use.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuro Yamada 2018-12-20 01:05:30 Re: Tab completion for ALTER INDEX|TABLE ALTER COLUMN SET STATISTICS
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-12-20 01:01:14 Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)