| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | davidmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: btree index maximum row size |
| Date: | 2020-03-13 00:17:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20200313001712.GB2309@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 07:09:19PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/limits.html
> Description:
>
> Appendix K (PostgreSQL Limits) - doesn't mention the (btree) index row size
> limits. I think that it should.
Sorry for the delay in replying. We do get questions about the btree
length limit occasionally, but practically the length limit usually
isn't a problem. Unless you need ordered data, a hash index is a better
choice for long values than btree because the hashes are much shorter.
Expression indexes can also help.
What is your use-case for indexing very long values?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-03-13 00:56:53 | Re: btree index maximum row size |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-03-12 23:30:20 | Re: 37.10.3 |