
> > > 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

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:22:25 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: Open 7.3 items