Tom Lane wrote: > the parser tables are basically number-of-tokens wide by > number-of-states high. (In HEAD there are 433 tokens known to the > grammar, all but 30 of which are keywords, and 4367 states.) > > Splitting the grammar into multiple grammars is unlikely to do > much to improve this --- in fact, it could easily make matters > worse due to duplication.
I agree that without knowing what percentage would be used by each parser in a split, it could go either way. Consider a hypothetical situation where one parser has 80% and the other 50% of the current combined parser -- 30% overlap on both tokens and grammer constructs. (Picking numbers out of the air, for purposes of demonstration.) Combined = 433 * 4,367 = 1,890,911 80% = 346 * 3,493 = 1,208,578 50% = 216 * 2,183 = 471,528 Total for split = 1,680,106 Of course if they were both at 80% it would be a higher total than combined, but unless you have a handle on the percentages, it doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion. Do you have any feel for what the split would be? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
