From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: State of Beta 2 |
Date: | 2003-09-12 16:07:53 |
Message-ID: | 4jq3mvodqklpcblc1342mk650hrm1fclkl@email.aon.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:16:58 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>> This 1600 column limit has nothing to do with block size.
>
>Right, but that's not the only limit on number of columns.
I just wanted to make clear that increasing page size does not enable
you to get beyond that 1600 column limit. This not so uncommon
misbelief is ... well, I wouldn't say caused, but at least not
contradicted by
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/limitations.html
| Maximum number of 250 - 1600 depending
| columns in a table on column types
| [...]
| The maximum table size and maximum number of columns can be
| increased if the default block size is increased to 32k.
>But raise the page size, and these
>limits increase, possibly allowing the 1600 number to become the actual
>limiting factor.
Theoretically with int2 or "char" columns the 1600 columns limit can
be reached even without changing the page size. Figuring out a use
case for such a table is another story ...
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Lebedev | 2003-09-12 16:09:23 | Serial type currval |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-09-12 16:07:14 | Re: difference when using 'distinct on' |