Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Date: 2002-03-11 22:11:24
Message-ID: 200203112211.g2BMBOs20787@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it.
> > >
> > > Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
> > > function args?
> >
> > Yes, they are related. At least I think so. Anyway, the parameter that
> > needs increasing is max function args. I got mixed up there.
>
> Then again, if they are related, why not let the index max
> keys be automatically set according to the function max arg
> configuration? Is there any reason someone want's to limit
> it smaller than the system could technically handle?

I don't think so. I don't remember if there is a NULL bitmap that is
fixed length for indexes. I don't think so.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2002-03-11 22:32:22 Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-11 22:02:25 Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?