Tom Lane writes: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
Here's a breakdown of the postmaster file sizes and the wall-clock run time of the long-literal test: no options 1749912 1m58.688s -CFe 1754315 1m49.223s -CF 1817621 1m43.780s -CFa 1890197 1m45.600s (These numbers are different than yesterday's because they don't have profiling and debugging overhead.) Seeing this, I think -CF should be OK space and time-wise. > How much of your reported improvement is due to -CFa, and how much to > the coding improvements you made? As I recall it, probably a third of the overall improvement came from using -CF[a]. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
