| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rtree; cannot create index on polygons with lots of points |
| Date: | 2001-05-24 11:35:51 |
| Message-ID: | 27759.990704151@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net> writes:
> So far, so good, but when you try to create an rtree index, you get;
>> create index quick on test_geom using rtree (poly);
> ERROR: index_formtuple: data takes 20040 bytes, max is 8191
Yup. We don't yet have a solution that allows index entries to be moved
into a TOAST table (and even if we did, it'd doubtless be slower than
one would like for an index).
> The polygon type is actually creating the rtree index on a small portion
> of the actual polygon data (its boundingbox, NOT the actual points).
> Why does the index need to store the entire geometry?
rtree doesn't have any notion of compression or lossy storage of data.
GIST does, so I'd recommend that you take a hard look at moving over
to GIST. Over the long run I think we are going to abandon rtree in
favor of GIST --- the latter probably has more bugs at present, but once
those are flushed out I see no real reason to keep supporting rtree.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-24 11:49:03 | Re: Smaller access privilege changes |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-05-24 11:07:24 | Smaller access privilege changes |