From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MAX Query length |
Date: | 1999-07-15 13:58:53 |
Message-ID: | 6093.932047133@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> At present, disk blocks are set to 8k. Is it as easy as just adjusting the
> constant to enlarge this? Testing queries larger than 16k with only an 8k
> tuple size could be challenging.
As of 6.5, it's just a matter of adjusting BLCKSZ in include/config.h,
rebuilding, and re-initdb-ing. The workable sizes are 8k 16k and 32k;
bigger than 32k fails for reasons I don't recall exactly (offsets
stored in signed shorts somewhere, no doubt).
> Is somebody actively working on removing the tuple-length dependence on the
> block size?
There was considerable discussion about it a few weeks ago, but I didn't
hear anyone actually committing to do the work :-(. Maybe when you've
made some progress on the text-length issues, someone will get excited
about the tuple-length issue...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Louis Bertrand | 1999-07-15 14:10:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO list |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-15 13:42:30 | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |