Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)

John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A few months ago I was looking into faster search algorithms for
> ScanKeywordLookup(), so this is interesting to me. While an optimal
> full replacement would be a lot of work, the above ideas are much less
> invasive and would still have some benefit. Unless anyone intends to
> work on this, I'd like to flesh out the offset-into-giant-string
> approach a bit further:

Have at it...

> Since PL/pgSQL uses the core scanner, we'd need to use offsets in its
> reserved_keywords[], too. Those don't change much, so we can probably
> get away with hard-coding the offsets and the giant string in that
> case. (If that's not acceptable, we could separate that out to
> pl_reserved_kwlist.h and reuse the above tooling to generate
> pl_reserved_kwlist_{offset,string}.h, but that's more complex.)

plpgsql isn't as stable as all that: people propose new syntax for it
all the time. I do not think a hand-maintained array would be pleasant
at all.

Also, wouldn't we also adopt this technology for its unreserved keywords,
too?

regards, tom lane