Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
Date: 2000-01-19 20:12:25
Message-ID: 200001192012.PAA20286@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> On 2000-01-18, Bruce Momjian mentioned:
>
> > Can you run our keywords.c using our method and gperf and see if there
> > is any speed difference?
>
> It seems to have a speed advantage of about 2.5. But in practice that
> means that 1 million words take half a second. It's not a big deal to me,
> I was just wondering before I throw it out. I guess it really only makes a
> difference for compilers, which operate on 1000+ lines.
>

The big difference may be that the compiler has variables/types that are
added dynamically while running, while our list is static. Insert time
for our types is zero because we don't add SQL keywords at runtime.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-19 20:19:54 Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-19 20:11:35 Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?