| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Date: | 2002-04-16 03:44:16 |
| Message-ID: | 200204160344.g3G3iGg04889@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> (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? I can do that if it's of any help, for various values
> perhaps.
I think I would measure disk size change in a newly created database,
and run regression for various values. That uses a lot of identifier
lookups.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-16 03:49:30 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:42:35 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-16 03:49:30 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:42:35 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-16 03:49:30 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-16 03:42:35 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |