Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > mcrl3_1_partnumber_index
> > >
> > > And it works fine.. I did some selects on data that should have ended up
> > > in the .1 file, and it works great. The best thing about it, is that it
> > > seems at least as fast as MSSQL on the same data, if not faster..
> >
> > This is what I got when I tested it using a reduced file size. It's what
> > made me decide to reduce the size by 1 in the patch I posted earlier.
> >
> > However, I'm using John's suggestion of reducing the file size a lot more,
> > to ensure we don't hit any math errors, etc. So the max file size is about
> > 1.6Gb.
>
> I can imagine people finding that strange. It it really needed. Is
> there some math that could overflow with a larger value?

Not sure. My original choice was to subtract 1 from the calculated
maximum, which meant it would split just before the 2Gb limit.

However, running with the value set at the lower value:

1998585856 Feb 8 02:25 /opt/db/base/test/smallcat
599007232 Feb 8 03:21 /opt/db/base/test/smallcat.1

Total 26653000 rows loaded

Would anyone really notice the lower value?

Perhaps we could make this another compile time setting, like the block
size?

Peter

--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf