Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3D4E974E.7070104@joeconway.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > The bloat would scale with the size of your schema, not with the amount > of data in your tables (unless you have "name" columns in your user > tables, which is something we've always discouraged). template1 is > clearly a worst-case scenario, percentagewise, for NAMEDATALEN. > > I'm quite prepared to believe that the net cost is "a couple megs per > database" more or less independent of how much data you store. Maybe > that's negligible these days, or maybe it isn't ... Seems to me it's negligible for the vast majority of applications. I *know* it is for any appplication that I have. We can always tell people who are doing embedded application work to bump *down* NAMEDATALEN. Joe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: