Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 04:05:40
Message-ID: 565.1028347540@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I wasn't terribly concerned because this wasn't a 2% on normal workload
> test, it was a 2% bang on function calls as fast as you can test.

No, it was a 2% hit on rather slow functions with only one call made
per query issued by the client. This is not much of a stress test.

A more impressive comparison would be

select 2+2+2+2+2+2+ ... (iterate 10000 times or so)

and see how much that slows down.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-03 04:11:05 Sponsored developers on web site
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-03 03:26:18 Re: Planned simplification of catalog index updates