John Naylor <jcnay...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/3/19, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote:
>> I was pointed at your patch on IRC and decided to look into adding my
>> own pieces. What I can provide you is a fast perfect hash function
>> generator. I've attached a sample hash function based on the current
>> main keyword list. hash() essentially gives you the number of the only
>> possible match, a final strcmp/memcmp is still necessary to verify that
>> it is an actual keyword though. The |0x20 can be dropped if all cases
>> have pre-lower-cased the input already. This would replace the binary
>> search in the lookup functions. Returning offsets directly would be easy
>> as well. That allows writing a single string where each entry is prefixed
>> with a type mask, the token id, the length of the keyword and the actual
>> keyword text. Does that sound useful to you?
> Judging by previous responses, there is still interest in using
> perfect hash functions, so thanks for this. I'm not knowledgeable
> enough to judge its implementation, so I'll leave that for others.
We haven't actually seen the implementation, so it's hard to judge ;-).
The sample hash function certainly looks great. I'm not terribly on board
with using |0x20 as a substitute for lower-casing, but that's a minor
detail.
The foremost questions in my mind are:
* What's the generator written in? (if the answer's not "Perl", wedging
it into our build processes might be painful)
* What license is it under?
* Does it always suceed in producing a single-level lookup table?
regards, tom lane
