Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Date
Msg-id 3D4CD53F.3040203@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Set 'o patches
Next
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: Re: fate of CLUSTER command ?