Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

> > mcrl3_1_partnumber_index
> >
> > And it works fine.. I did some selects on data that should have ended up
> > in the .1 file, and it works great. The best thing about it, is that it
> > seems at least as fast as MSSQL on the same data, if not faster..
>
> This is what I got when I tested it using a reduced file size. It's what
> made me decide to reduce the size by 1 in the patch I posted earlier.
>
> However, I'm using John's suggestion of reducing the file size a lot more,
> to ensure we don't hit any math errors, etc. So the max file size is about
> 1.6Gb.

I can imagine people finding that strange. It it really needed. Is
there some math that could overflow with a larger value?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026