From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
Date: | 2002-08-05 16:21:36 |
Message-ID: | 200208051621.g75GLa629595@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > We can always tell people who are doing embedded application work to
> > bump *down* NAMEDATALEN.
>
> Good point. Okay, I'm OK with 128 ...
Yes, good point. I think the major issue is pushing stuff out of the
cache because we have longer names. Did we see performance hit at 128?
Seems it more that just disk space.
I don't have trouble with 128, but other than standards compliance, I
can't see many people getting >64 names.
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-05 16:23:02 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka SRFs) |
Previous Message | Neophytos Demetriou | 2002-08-05 15:34:54 | Re: Error: missing chunk number ... |