Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Date
Msg-id 200208050521.g755Lc810381@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.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.

I prefer 64 for NAMEDATALEN myself.  Standards compliance is nice, but
realistically it seems a shame to waste so much space on an excessive
length that will never be used.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Copeland
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations
Next
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Wacky OID idea