On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:06:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * Speed of the generated parser could be better. I suspect this has
> a lot to do with the fact that our grammar is huge, and so are the
> tables, and that causes lots of cache misses. Maybe this could be
> addressed by trying to make the tables smaller and/or laid out in
> a way with better cache locality?
Agreed. This was brought up in January, with a little more specificity:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190125223859.gd13...@momjian.us
With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
planning to use Bison for years to come, has anyone ever looked at
reordering the bison state machine array to be more cache aware, e.g.,
having common states next to each other rather than scattered around the
array?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
