From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
Date: | 2007-02-21 11:04:47 |
Message-ID: | 45DC274F.3020905@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hi,
Tom Lane wrote:
> You mean four different object types. I'm not totally clear on bison's
> scaling behavior relative to the number of productions
You really want to trade parser performance (which is *very*
implementation specific) for ease of use?
Bison generates a LALR [1] parser, which depend quite a bit on the
number of productions. But AFAIK the dependency is mostly on memory
consumption for the internal symbol sets, not so much on runtime
complexity. I didn't find hard facts about runtime complexity of LALR,
though (pointers are very welcome).
Are there any ongoing efforts to rewrite the parser (i.e. using another
algorithm, like a recursive descent parser)?
Regards
Markus
[1]: Wikipedia on the LALR parsing algorithm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LALR_parser
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-21 12:30:32 | Re: pg_proc without oid? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-21 10:03:17 | Re: msvc failure in largeobject regression test |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adriaan van Os | 2007-02-21 11:06:01 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2977: dow doesn't conform to ISO-8601 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-21 05:49:11 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |