Re: namedatalen part 2 (cont'd)

Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> > ...Based on that data, I'd vote against making any changes to NAMEDATALEN.
> 
> It looked to me like the cost for going to NAMEDATALEN = 64 would be
> reasonable.  Based on these numbers I'd have a problem with 128 or more.
> 
> But as you observe, pgbench numbers are not very repeatable.  It'd be
> nice to have some similar experiments with another benchmark before
> making a decision.

Yes, 64 looked like the appropriate value too.  Actually, I was
surprised to see as much of a slowdown as we did.

--  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,
Pennsylvania19026