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
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? |