| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dan Armbrust <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: index row size exceeds btree maximum, 2713 - |
| Date: | 2005-07-19 16:20:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1121790031.8208.369.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 10:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 05:42, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> >> You can index text fields, but you can't insert values bigger then
> >> BLOCKSIZE/3 when you have an index on that column.]
>
> > Please note that the size limitation is for btree indexes, the most
> > common and well tested index types.
> > For hash you can have a much larger value, but only direct matching is
> > supported.
> > I don't know about GiST...
>
> None of the index types support entries larger than BLOCKSIZE-less-a-bit,
> so switching to a different index type won't do more than push the
> problem out by a factor of about 3.
Are they compressed? It would look to me like maybe they are, or
something strange like that. When I fed highly compressable data into
an indexed field, it took a LOT of said text to get a failure method.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-19 16:26:03 | Re: index row size exceeds btree maximum, 2713 - |
| Previous Message | Amir Tahvildaran | 2005-07-19 15:51:55 | Custom DateStyle |