On 4/27/06, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The answer to that can certainly be "performance" provided other factors > (such as maintainability) don't change much. If you could show that > then I think such a switch would be very seriously considered.
IMHO, switching parser-types (and parser generators) is more about maintainability than performance itself. SQL is much nicer in recursive descent where you don't have yacc/bison limitations such as 1 token of lookahead and non-ebnf grammars. The sort-of odd thing is that PCCTS (like its much younger brother ANTLR) is intended on generating ASTs whereas yacc/bison requires you to build the parse tree manually (as we do). Don't get me wrong, this was taken into consideration with PCCTS, but it's not as optimal or beautiful as it would be to have PCCTS itself generate the parse tree. Still, it's nicer to maintain than a yacc/bison grammar. -- Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect EnterpriseDB Corporation 732.331.1324 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
