Re: Improved scanner performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Improved scanner performance
Date
Msg-id 18977.1019278994@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improved scanner performance  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Improved scanner performance  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I had the idea that -CF would enlarge the lexer tables quite a bit ---
>> what's the change in executable size?)

> +150 kB

> I've also looked at -CFe, which is supposedly the next slowest level, but
> it doesn't do nearly as well.

Ouch; that sounds like about a ten percent increase in the size of
the backend executable.  That's enough to reach my threshold of pain;
is the long-literal issue worth that much?

How much of your reported improvement is due to -CFa, and how much to
the coding improvements you made?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Improved scanner performance
Next
From: Curt Sampson
Date:
Subject: On-disk Tuple Size