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
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? |