Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 12:28, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> >> While I agree that it might be handy to save this bit for future use,
> >> I do not see any value in increasing the max key length from 8k,
>
> > I'm not sure if it applies here, but key length for GIST indexes may
> > benefit from 2x increase (14bits = 16k). IIRC limited key length is one
> > reason for intarray indexes being 'lossy'.
>
> Since there seems to be some dissension about that, I'll leave the
> t_info bit unused for now, instead of absorbing it into the length
> field.
>
> Since 13 bits is sufficient for 8K, people would not see any benefit
> anyway unless they use a nonstandard BLCKSZ. So I'm not that concerned
> about raising it --- just wanted to throw out the idea and see if people
> liked it.

Also, in btree haven't we had some problems with index page
splits when using entries large enought so that not at least
3 of them fit on a page?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #