Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020415234235.7836bcf5.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@atentus.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:34:04 -0400 "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@atentus.com> wrote: > En Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:19:45 -0400 > "Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca> escribió: > > > On the note of NAMEDATALEN, a view in the INFORMATION_SCHEMA > > definition is exactly 2 characters over the current limit. > > > > ADMINISTRABLE_ROLE_AUTHORIZATIONS > > > > Not that it's a great reason, but it isn't a bad one for increasing > > the limit ;) > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2002-01/msg00939.php > > (Tom Lane says both SQL92 and SQL99 specify 128 as the maximun > identifier length) > > Anyway, how does one measure the perfomance impact of such a change? > By merely changing the constant definition, or also by actually using > long identifiers? Name values are stored NULL-padded up to NAMEDATALEN bytes, so there is no need to actually use long identifiers, just change the value of NAMEDATALEN, recompile and run some benchmarks (perhaps OSDB? http://osdb.sf.net). If you do decide to run some benchmarks (and some more data would be good), please use the current CVS code. I sent in a patch a little while ago that should somewhat reduce the penalty for increasing NAMEDATALEN. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: