feat(dialects): update dialect definitions#2080
Open
gvozdvmozgu wants to merge 12 commits intomainfrom
Open
Conversation
Benchmark for 9c10b7cClick to view benchmark
|
gvozdvmozgu
force-pushed
the
update-dialect-definitions
branch
from
27c1f3e to
b550e59
Compare
Benchmark for b33f9ffClick to view benchmark
|
Benchmark for 4244061Click to view benchmark
|
gvozdvmozgu
force-pushed
the
update-dialect-definitions
branch
from
4b4ba69 to
d4991db
Compare
Benchmark for 2507f80Click to view benchmark
|
Benchmark for c43629fClick to view benchmark
|
gvozdvmozgu
force-pushed
the
update-dialect-definitions
branch
from
f9da53a to
85df954
Compare
Benchmark for d2afb00Click to view benchmark
|
Collaborator
|
I'd love to merge this but 200k lines might be hard to tackle in one go. How do you think we should break this apart? I also am very keen to start diverging from sqlfluff in the sense that I think the grammar definitions should be more precise. For example, I think pgvector in Postgres should be an explicit setting. My thought would be to tackle it dialect by dialect? |
Collaborator
Author
|
I don’t understand how to split this properly: if we change ANSI, we break other dialects. And if we start with the dialects that depend on ANSI, they will still require updating ANSI. I’ll try, but I think it’ll be pretty difficult. |
gvozdvmozgu
force-pushed
the
update-dialect-definitions
branch
from
017efde to
85df954
Compare
Benchmark for 91b7c45Click to view benchmark
|
gvozdvmozgu
force-pushed
the
update-dialect-definitions
branch
from
85df954 to
176462a
Compare
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging this PR will degrade performance by 24.1%Comparing Summary
Performance Changes
|
Benchmark for 4e9b3a3Click to view benchmark
|
Collaborator
|
I've looked at ansi, all the fixtures look good. Is there any reason for the move away from |
Collaborator
Author
|
Lately, I’ve been thinking there isn’t much reason to keep vec_erased. Now that it’s gone, it seems like we could avoid type-erasing Matchable in a few places too, which might cut down on allocations overall. I don’t feel strongly about it, but for now I’m leaning toward stripping out any extra sugar and dependencies so we can see the full picture and decide what to do next. |
Collaborator
|
I'm ok either way. Would it be possible (sorry if painful) to untangle that change from the dialect changes? I'm happy to do the removal of vec_erased in a separate pr and then you just need to rebase this? |
gvozdvmozgu
force-pushed
the
update-dialect-definitions
branch
from
37c2be3 to
8759028
Compare
Benchmark for bd4de78Click to view benchmark
|
Benchmark for 0a33e21Click to view benchmark
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.