Re: Open 7.3 items

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items
Date: 2002-08-01 08:22:25
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961E37@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > > NAMEDATALEN - disk/performance penalty for increase, 64, 128?
> > > FUNC_MAX_ARGS - disk/performance penalty for increase, 24, 32?
> >
> > At the moment I don't see a lot of solid evidence that increasing
> > NAMEDATALEN has any performance penalty. Someone reported about
> > a 10% slowdown on pgbench with NAMEDATALEN=128 ... but Neil Conway
> > tried to reproduce the result, and got about a 10% *speedup*.
> > Personally I think 10% is well within the noise spectrum for
> > pgbench, and so it's difficult to claim that we have established
> > any performance difference at all. I have not tried to measure
> > FUNC_MAX_ARGS differences.
>
> Yes, we need someone to benchmark both the NAMEDATALEN and FUNC_MAX_ARGS
> to prove we are not causing performance problems.

I think a valid NAMEDATALEN benchmark would need to use a lot of tables,
like 1000-6000 with 10-100 columns each. The last bench was iirc done with
pgbench that only uses a few tables. (The name type is fixed length)

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Michel POURE 2002-08-01 08:43:18 Re: Open 7.3 items
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-08-01 07:55:46 Re: Open 7.3 items