From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: namedatalen part 2 (cont'd) |
Date: | 2002-04-24 13:57:29 |
Message-ID: | 200204241357.g3ODvTY08250@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)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(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 | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-24 14:03:07 | Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-24 13:56:38 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |