Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ...