Re: Making oidvector and int2vector variable-length - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Making oidvector and int2vector variable-length
Date
Msg-id 18578.1111956068@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Making oidvector and int2vector variable-length  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
Responses Re: Making oidvector and int2vector variable-length
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:44:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been toying with the idea of converting the oidvector and
>> int2vector datatypes from fixed-width arrays to variable-length;
>> that is, stick a varlena length word on the front and store only
>> pronargs or indnatts entries instead of a fixed number.

> This mean that it would be possible to set FUNC_MAX_ARGS much higher
> without performance loss, right?  That alone sounds like a big win to
> me.

It wouldn't cost anything in terms of disk space.  I'm not sure about
performance implications --- there are a lot of MemSets floating around
that zero FUNC_MAX_ARGS worth of space, and I'm unsure if any of them
are in performance-critical paths.  Atsushi Ogawa got the most critical
ones recently, though.

Very likely we could kick it up to 100 or so without feeling any pain;
how high were you thinking?

(Since I wasn't thinking of making oidvector TOAST-capable, it wouldn't
be possible to set FUNC_MAX_ARGS higher than ~600 anyway without
exceeding the maximum index tuple size in pg_proc's index.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug 1500
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?