| From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed |
| Date: | 2002-05-22 17:14:17 |
| Message-ID: | 200205221714.g4MHEHc02933@saturn.janwieck.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Also, in btree haven't we had some problems with index page
> > splits when using entries large enought so that not at least
> > 3 of them fit on a page?
>
> Right, that's why I said that the limit would only go up to ~10K anyway;
> btree won't take keys > 1/3 page.
What's the point then? I mean, someone who needs more than 8K
will outgrow 10K in no time, and those cases are topics for
comp.databases.abuse.brutal ...
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-22 17:27:19 | Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed |
| Previous Message | Ulrich Drepper | 2002-05-22 17:12:31 | Re: Redhat 7.3 time manipulation bug |