Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: namedatalen part 2 (cont'd)

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: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>,Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: namedatalen part 2 (cont'd)
Date: 2002-04-24 13:57:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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                        |
  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 MomjianDate: 2002-04-24 14:03:07
Subject: Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-24 13:56:38
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group