From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | "'stuart(at)comodo(dot)net'" <stuart(at)comodo(dot)net>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] 8k limit |
Date: | 1999-10-26 16:16:49 |
Message-ID: | 23186.940954609@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
"Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> The 8kB limit you are refering to is probably the tuple-length limit. This
> can be altered to a maximum of 64kB (I think, might only be 32kB),
32k; otherwise Michael's comments are accurate.
>>> been discussed here before =). Next question is whats the
>>> max number of large
>>> objects you can store? I think its about 4 billion , am i wrong?
Each LO results in the creation of two files in your database directory,
which means performance will get pretty horrible when you get past a
few thousand LOs (at least on most flavors of Unix, which are not
optimized for huge directories).
There has been discussion of fixing this, eg by making a subdirectory
tree for LOs, but I'd rather see us put our effort into eliminating
the tuple length limit.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Huillard | 1999-10-26 16:59:24 | pgAdmin connection error on NT and W98 |
Previous Message | Ansley, Michael | 1999-10-26 13:31:24 | RE: [INTERFACES] 8k limit |