Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2002-08-03 17:11:50
Message-ID: 3D4C0ED6.20806@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Did you happen to make any notes about the disk space occupied by the
> database? One thing I was worried about was the bloat that'd occur
> in pg_proc, pg_index, and pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index. Aside from
> costing disk space, this would indirectly slow things down due to more
> I/O to read these tables --- an effect that probably your test couldn't
> measure, since it wasn't touching very many entries in any of those
> tables.

No, but it's easy enough to repeat. I'll do that today sometime.

Joe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sander Steffann 2002-08-03 17:33:04 Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?
Previous Message Don Baccus 2002-08-03 16:47:54 Re: Table inheritance versus views