Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
Date: 2000-01-19 20:22:02
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0001191621030.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> [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.

I'm curious...does it hurt us any to do this? Like, will it slow things
down? Is the end result cleaner, for neglible speed improvements?

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Samersoff 2000-01-19 21:03:56 Re: [HACKERS] [hackers]development suggestion needed (filepath assymlink)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-19 20:19:54 Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?