Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone?
От | Don Baccus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3.0.1.32.20000120073838.01034ec0@mail.pacifier.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
At 12:34 PM 1/20/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >No, compiler don't do this either. This is specifically for keyword >lookup. The whole idea is that you have one set of keywords that hardly >ever changes (such as for programming languages), then you take one >afternoon off, play around with the different options until you have a >lookup function which processes your particular keyword set fastest. >Again, this is not a big deal to me, I just did it to play around. In any >case it seems to run faster, but I wasn't sure if people wanted to bother. The binary search could very easily be sped up, actually (I just peeked). If you'd care to e-mail me your two test cases, the one using the output of gperf and the one using the current binary search, I'd be more than willing to demonstrate. I have nothing against speeding things up, though again identifying keywords takes a vanishingly small part of the time required to execute a query (or compile a program, for that matter). I more or less dislike adding dependencies to external tools when it can be avoided, though. I just built a new PC to do linux-based development on and it would be fun to have your benchmark program to compare my new and old linux boxes anyway :) (P 200 classic vs. P500E, guess which will win?) - 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: