> > > 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.
I think a valid NAMEDATALEN benchmark would need to use a lot of tables,
like 1000-6000 with 10-100 columns each. The last bench was iirc done with
pgbench that only uses a few tables. (The name type is fixed length)
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
