| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Date: | 2000-01-19 04:40:49 |
| Message-ID: | 3754.948256849@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> At 07:36 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I wondered about this last, i.e. the use of GNU code since Postgres
> is licensed differently.
AFAIK this is no worse than using flex or bison --- the source code of
gperf is GPL'ed, but its output is not.
Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> Whether faster or slower, though, I can't imagine either method taking
> noticably more than 0% of the total time to process a query, even the
> most simple queries.
I agree with Don that the performance benefit is likely to be
unmeasurable. Still, there could be a win: we currently have to modify
keywords.c by hand every time we have to add/delete a keyword. Does
gperf offer any aid for maintaining the keyword list? If so, that'd
be sufficient reason to switch to it...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-01-19 04:40:54 | Re: [HACKERS] multi-byte support broken in current |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-19 03:41:40 | Status on 7.0 |