| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: tsearch parser overhaul |
| Date: | 2009-12-10 23:10:37 |
| Message-ID: | 28898.1260486637@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I'm inclined that it would be no more work to replace the current
> recursively called state engine with something easier to read and
> understand than to try to fix the current oddities. Perhaps
> something along the lines of this?:
> http://vo.astronet.ru/arxiv/dict_regex.html
> I suspect we'd need to get it to use the same regexp code used
> elsewhere in PostgreSQL.
We're certainly not going to start carrying two regexp engines,
so yeah ;-)
I guess if this is proposed as a replacement for the existing parser,
we'd need to see some speed comparisons. I have no idea at all which
is faster.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-12-10 23:19:21 | Re: Python 3.1 support |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-12-10 22:59:01 | Re: thread safety on clients |