| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 03:56:25 |
| Message-ID: | 14274.1028519785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-05 04:00:31 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-05 03:17:03 | Re: fate of CLUSTER command ? |