Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> 
> As long as we allocate the full length for the funcarg and name types,
> we are going to have performance/space issues with increasing them,
> especially since we are looking at doubling or quadrupling those values.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I think funcargs of 32 and name of 64 is the way to go for 7.3.  If we
> find we need longer names or we find we can make them variable length,
> we can revisit the issue.  However, variable length has a performance
> cost as well, so it is not certain we will ever make them variable
> length.

I was thinking of looking at turning names to varchars/text in order to test
the performance hit [in the first instance]. However doing a

  find . -name \*\.\[ch\] | xargs grep NAMEDATALEN | wc -l

gives 185 hits and some of those are setting other macros. It seems to me there
is a fair amount of work involved in just getting variable length names into
the system so that they can be tested.



-- 
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants