Horton
Menu

Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>, Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-08-05T05:21:37Z
Lists: 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, Pennsylvania 19026