Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> > ...Based on that data, I'd vote against making any changes to NAMEDATALEN.
> It looked to me like the cost for going to NAMEDATALEN = 64 would be
> reasonable. Based on these numbers I'd have a problem with 128 or more.
> But as you observe, pgbench numbers are not very repeatable. It'd be
> nice to have some similar experiments with another benchmark before
> making a decision.
Yes, 64 looked like the appropriate value too. Actually, I was
surprised to see as much of a slowdown as we did.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-04-24 14:03:07|
|Subject: Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-04-24 13:56:38|
|Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction|