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: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Date: | 2002-07-31 19:30:30 |
Message-ID: | 200207311930.g6VJUUR07783@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > NAMEDATALEN - disk/performance penalty for increase, 64, 128?
> > FUNC_MAX_ARGS - disk/performance penalty for increase, 24, 32?
>
> At the moment I don't see a lot of solid evidence that increasing
> NAMEDATALEN has any performance penalty. Someone reported about
> a 10% slowdown on pgbench with NAMEDATALEN=128 ... but Neil Conway
> tried to reproduce the result, and got about a 10% *speedup*.
> Personally I think 10% is well within the noise spectrum for
> pgbench, and so it's difficult to claim that we have established
> any performance difference at all. I have not tried to measure
> FUNC_MAX_ARGS differences.
Yes, we need someone to benchmark both the NAMEDATALEN and FUNC_MAX_ARGS
to prove we are not causing performance problems. Once that is done,
the default limits can be easily increased. I was thinking 64 for
NAMEDATALEN and 32 for FUNC_MAX_ARGS, effectively doubling both.
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2002-07-31 19:37:07 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-31 19:28:42 | Re: Open 7.3 items |