| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 06:08:17 |
| Message-ID: | 3D4E1651.8020507@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
>
But is the space wasted really never more than a few MB's, even if the
database itself is say 1 GB? If so, and if the speed penalty is small to
non-existent, I'd rather be spec compliant. That way nobody has a good
basis for complaining ;-)
I guess I'll try another test with a larger data-set.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-05 06:19:37 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-05 05:57:26 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka |