On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 00:42, Stephen Deasey wrote: > Neil Conway said: > >> FUNC_MAX_ARGS - disk/performance penalty for increase, 24, 32? > > > >Until someone takes the time to determine what the performance > >implications of this change will be, I don't think we should > >change this. Given that no one has done any testing, I'm not > >convinced that there's a lot of demand for this anyway. > > > There's a huge demand for this from the folks involved with OpenACS. > Already many of the functions have run up against the 16 column limit. > Overloading is an ugly cludge for some functions which have 'default' > args, but it's not a complete solution. > > Not that it has proven to be slower, but if it were but the difference > was small, I'd say that forcing a recomplile to eek out a little extra > performance is better than forcing it to make code work in the first > place. > > 32 args, please!
32 at a bare minimum. Someone needs to dig out what the problem is and make the cost increase with length. > 128 args is easily feasibly given some Oracle systems I've seen -- DB functions as middleware. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
