Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Date
Msg-id 200208051621.g75GLa629595@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> > We can always tell people who are doing embedded application work to 
> > bump *down* NAMEDATALEN.
> 
> Good point.  Okay, I'm OK with 128 ...

Yes, good point.  I think the major issue is pushing stuff out of the
cache because we have longer names.  Did we see performance hit at 128? 
Seems it more that just disk space.

I don't have trouble with 128, but other than standards compliance,  I
can't see many people getting >64 names.

--  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: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks