Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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: 2002-08-04 07:18:23
Message-ID: 3D4CD53F.3040203@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>>OK, time to get moving folks. Looks like the increase in the function
>>>args to 32 and the NAMEDATALEN to 128 has been sufficiently tested.
>>
>>I'm convinced by Joe's numbers that FUNC_MAX_ARGS = 32 shouldn't hurt
>>too much. But have we done equivalent checks on NAMEDATALEN? In
>>particular, do we know what it does to the size of template1?
>
>
> No, I thought we saw the number, was 30%? No, we did a test for 64.
> Can someone get us that number for 128?
>

These are all with FUNC_MAX_ARGS = 16.

#define NAMEDATALEN 32
du -h --max-depth=1 /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16862
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16863
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16864
3.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16865
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16866
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/17117
19M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base

#define NAMEDATALEN 64
du -h --max-depth=1 /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/
3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16863
3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16864
3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16865
3.5M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16866
3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16867
19M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base

#define NAMEDATALEN 128
du -h --max-depth=1 /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/
3.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
3.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16863
3.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16864
3.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16865
4.4M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16866
3.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16867
23M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2002-08-04 07:21:39 Re: fate of CLUSTER command ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-04 07:12:22 Re: Set 'o patches