From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
---|---|
To: | Brian Hirt <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, bhirt(at)loopy(dot)berkhirt(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] text datatype and tuple size limits. |
Date: | 1999-10-28 10:17:01 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.9910281214130.567-100000@Puma.DoCS.UU.SE |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
As far as I could follow it, the query size limit is all but gone, and it
will be for sure in 7.0. Regarding the tuple size limit, we are still
looking for volunteers to tackle that. You should find relevant messages
on this list a few days back.
-Peter
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Brian Hirt wrote:
> I'm running into what appears to be some hard coded limits of postgres.
> I've got a table with with a text column that I need to insert large
> amounts of text into. I quickly found these two things out:
>
> First, the MAX_QUERY_SIZE which is BLCKSZ*2 (or 16384 bytes), prevents
> me from from running the query since my query is much larger than 16384 i
> bytes. After discovering this, I decided to create a test query just
> smaller than 16384 to see what would happen.
>
> The second query returns "Tuple is too big: size 12508". I didn't bother
> to look into this one because I'd probably spend a lot of time looking,
> instead I am bringing the issue here.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-10-28 12:58:14 | Re: [HACKERS] psql Week 4.142857 |
Previous Message | ednut | 1999-10-28 09:20:57 | Re: Linux/Postgres 6.5 problems using jdbc w/jdk1.2 |