Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200208050521.g755Lc810381@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | 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, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: