Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>

From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>, Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-08-04T07:18:23Z
Lists: 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