Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To:
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 06:36:50
Message-ID: 3D4E1D02.6010305@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway wrote:
> 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.
>

Starting with pg_dumpall file at 138M.

#define INDEX_MAX_KEYS 16
#define FUNC_MAX_ARGS INDEX_MAX_KEYS
#define NAMEDATALEN 32
du -h --max-depth=1 /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16862
119M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16863
3.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696496
3.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696623
3.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696750
2.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696877
2.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696889
2.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696901
2.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696912
18M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696924
3.0M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/878966
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881056
2.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881075
2.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881078
3.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881093
3.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881225
2.8M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881604
3.3M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881620
31M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881807
31M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1031939
32M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1181250
31M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1332676
309M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base

#define INDEX_MAX_KEYS 32
#define FUNC_MAX_ARGS INDEX_MAX_KEYS
#define NAMEDATALEN 128
du -h --max-depth=1 /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/
4.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1
4.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16863
121M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/16864
4.6M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696497
4.6M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696624
4.6M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696751
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696878
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696890
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696902
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696913
20M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/696925
4.5M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/878967
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881057
4.1M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881076
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881079
4.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881094
4.7M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881226
4.2M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881605
4.9M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881621
33M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/881808
33M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1031940
33M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1181251
33M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base/1332677
343M /opt/data/pgsql/data/base

So the 119MB database only grows to 121MB. In fact, each of the > 10MB
databases seems to grow only about 2MB. Based on this, I'd go with:

#define INDEX_MAX_KEYS 32
#define FUNC_MAX_ARGS INDEX_MAX_KEYS
#define NAMEDATALEN 128

and take spec compliance.

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Weimer 2002-08-05 06:50:05 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-08-05 06:19:37 Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka