Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
Date
Msg-id 3D4F0578.9030709@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
Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, in fact it's not just a question of disk space.
> 
> The following numbers are stats for total elapsed time of "make
> installcheck" over ten trials:
> 
<snip>
> I'm not sure about the trend of increasing standard deviation --- that
> may reflect more disk I/O being done, and perhaps more checkpoints
> occurring during the test.  But in any case it's clear that there's a
> nontrivial runtime cost here.  Does a 10% slowdown bother you?

Hmmm -- didn't Neil do some kind of test that had different results, 
i.e. not much performance difference? I wonder if the large number of 
DDL commands in installcheck doesn't skew the results against longer 
NAMEDATALEN compared to other benchmarks?

# pwd
/opt/src/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql
# grep -i 'CREATE\|DROP' * | wc -l   1114


Joe



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: PL/Perl?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks