Thanks. That looks acceptable to me, and a good test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Conway wrote: > Ok, here are some crude benchmarks to attempt to measure the effect of > changing FUNC_MAX_ARGS. The benchmark script executed: > > CREATE FUNCTION test_func(int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int) > RETURNS INTEGER AS 'SELECT $1 + $2 + $3 + $4 + $5 + $6 + $7 + $8' > LANGUAGE 'sql' VOLATILE; > > Followed by 30,000 calls of: > > SELECT test_func(i, i, i, i, i, i, i, i); > > (Where i was the iteration number) > > I ran the test several times and averaged the results -- the wall-clock > time remained very consistent throughout the runs. Each execution of the > script took about 30 seconds. The machine was otherwise idle, and all > other PostgreSQL settings were at their default values. > > With FUNC_MAX_ARGS=16: > > 28.832 > 28.609 > 28.726 > 28.680 > > (average = 28.6 seconds) > > With FUNC_MAX_ARGS=32: > > 29.097 > 29.337 > 29.138 > 28.985 > 29.231 > > (average = 29.15 seconds) > > Cheers, > > Neil > > -- > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
