| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marc Millas <marc(dot)millas(at)mokadb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: index unique |
| Date: | 2021-06-08 20:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1175436.1623182714@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Marc Millas <marc(dot)millas(at)mokadb(dot)com> writes:
> I know, its clearly stated in postgres doc about btree," The only
> limitation is that an index entry cannot exceed approximately one-third of
> a page (after TOAST compression, if applicable)."
Yup.
> is there any plan to adress this ?
No. The cost/benefit ratio seems completely untenable.
The usual recommendation is that you shorten long values by hashing
them, eg create a unique index on md5(my_long_column).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2021-06-08 20:50:48 | Re: index unique |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-06-08 19:35:16 | Re: index unique |