Perhaps my understanding is off, but I am pretty sure parsing and translating SQL into bytecode still involves an AST.
Just that query processing itself is done from the bytecode (produced presumably from an AST or something similar) rather than directly from the AST itself.
If I'm right I can't really see how this performs better unless you're excluding the parsing step from benchmarks
Just that query processing itself is done from the bytecode (produced presumably from an AST or something similar) rather than directly from the AST itself.
If I'm right I can't really see how this performs better unless you're excluding the parsing step from benchmarks