Re: bison 1.75 installed ...

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bison 1.75 installed ...
Date: 2002-10-21 19:01:15
Message-ID: 200210211901.g9LJ1Fd18127@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > let me know if there are any problems with it ....
>
> <grouse>
> Other than the fact that it's about a factor of 16 slower than bison
> 1.28, while not offering any substantial gain in functionality? If I
> were a Bison maintainer, I'd hang my head in shame.
> </grouse>
>
> All PG regression tests pass here with 1.75-built parsers.

16x is the grammer output generation, not the actual parsing of the SQL,
right? There are cases where slow output generation can lead to faster
parsing, right? Let's hope that happened.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryan Mahoney 2002-10-21 20:19:32 integer array, push and pop
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-21 18:54:57 Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al