> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I found I didn't need to clear the date cache.
> >>
> >> Hmm, are you sure about that? I'm not.
>
> > I checked and it caches a pointer to the struct, not the values
> > themselves, and we don't change the structure, just the secondary values
> > and not the key used by the bsearch.
>
> Now I'm going to object LOUDLY. You cannot convince me that the above
> is a good implementation --- it's a complete crock, and will break the
> instant someone looks at it sidewise.
>
> My inclination would actually be to rip out the cache entirely. bsearch
> in a table this size is not so expensive that we need to bypass it, nor
> is it apparent that we are going to see lots of successive lookups for
> the same keyword anyway. How long has that cache been in there, and
> what was the motivation for adding it to begin with?
I see the CACHE coming in with:
1.42 (thomas 16-Feb-00): #define USE_DATE_CACHE 1
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
