Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 05 August 2002 04:56
> To: Joe Conway
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; Thomas Lockhart; Neil Conway; PostgreSQL Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
>
>
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > These are all with FUNC_MAX_ARGS = 16.
>
> > #define NAMEDATALEN 32
> > 2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
>
> > #define NAMEDATALEN 64
> > 3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
>
> > #define NAMEDATALEN 128
> > 3.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
>
> Based on Joe's numbers, I'm kind of thinking that we should
> go for FUNC_MAX_ARGS=32 and NAMEDATALEN=64 as defaults in 7.3.
>
> Although NAMEDATALEN=128 would be needed for full SQL
> compliance, the space penalty seems severe. I'm thinking we
> should back off until someone wants to do the legwork needed
> to make the name type be truly variable-length.
>
> Comments?

In Joe's last test he had only about 2Mb growth per db (I guess this
would not be the case had he used the name type in some of his tables).
I would rather lose a measly few Mb and be standards compliant myself.

$0.02

Regards, Dave.