| From: | Bartosz Dmytrak <bdmytrak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL limitations question |
| Date: | 2012-07-12 18:14:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAD8_UcaJBeR+vMEtgr4d74-i2HPEcnDoVVOQJuVREySjE6j-AA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2012/7/12 David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>
>
>
> How about saying: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size"
>
>
I am sorry for delay. My intention was to start discussion about unlimited
number of rows.
I like this idea: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size"
Another, maybe only academic, discussion is about maximum number of indexes
per table. Reason is the same. Indexes are stored in table pg_class (relkind
= 'i'), so when we agree number of table rows is limited, then number of
indexes is limited too.
There is fair sentence for number of columns - "depending on column type".
I think there should be an explanation what *unlimited* really means.
Thanks for Your attention.
Regards,
Bartek
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anibal David Acosta | 2012-07-12 18:38:30 | how much volatile is a function |
| Previous Message | arafatix | 2012-07-12 18:14:14 | Re: Query to find sum of grouped counts from 2 tables |