Re: Improved scanner performance

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> 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?

How much of your reported improvement is due to -CFa, and how much to
the coding improvements you made?
        regards, tom lane