Re: namedatalen part 2 (cont'd)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: namedatalen part 2 (cont'd)
Date: 2002-04-24 05:40:01
Message-ID: 4256.1019626801@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-04-24 05:41:00 Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch
Previous Message Curt Sampson 2002-04-24 04:38:06 Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE