Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion

Hi,

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> If we are worried about the size of the transition table and keeping it 
> in cache (see remarks from Tom upthread) then adding more keywords seems 
> a bad idea, as it will surely expand the table.  OTOH, I'd hate to make 
> that a design criterion. 

Yeah, me too. Especially because it's an implementation issue against 
ease of use. (Or can somebody convince me that functions would provide a 
simple interface?)

> My main worry has been that the grammar would 
> be stable.

You mean stability of the grammar for the new additions or for all the 
grammar? Why are you worried about that?

> Just to quantify all this, I did a quick check on the grammar using 
> bison -v - we appear to have 473 terminal symbols, and 420 non-terminal 
> sybols in 1749 rules, generating 3142 states. The biggest tables 
> generated are yytable and yycheck, each about 90kb on my machine.

That already sounds somewhat better that Tom's 300 kb. And considering 
that these caches most probably grow faster than our grammar...

Regards

Markus