Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
От | Don Baccus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3.0.1.32.20000118174928.00ef0370@mail.pacifier.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
At 07:36 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] >> A while ago I played around with gperf (GNU perfect hash function >> generator), abusing the keyword lookup in parser/keyword.c as playground. >> Now before I delete this I was wondering if this would perhaps be of use >> to the general public. I don't know how huge the speed advantage of this >> is, I'm sure the parser/scanner speed is the least of our problems. But I >> thunk especially ecpg could benefit from this. Btw., gperf is used by GCC, >> so it's not a toy. > >keywords are a fixed array, with a binary search to find a match. Could >gperf be faster? We also can not distribute GNU code. I wondered about this last, i.e. the use of GNU code since Postgres is licensed differently. The reality is that looking up keywords form a tiny fraction of the time spent by any language system I can think of. The current binary search on a fixed array might be faster, might be slower than a perfect hash on a particular machine depending on the calculation done to do the hashing. 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. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: