| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
| Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Date: | 2000-01-20 11:31:26 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001201231021.15489-100000@Puma.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> also... to accomplish the gperf testing I do a strlen on each word,
> over and over to simulate the need for it (as gperf needs that)
> however if the strlen is already available in the parser at this
> time, i'm pretty sure it would be even faster.
Precisely, that was the idea.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-20 11:34:07 | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-20 11:24:19 | Re: [HACKERS] initdb problems on Solaris |