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

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > 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?
>
> I guess all I am saying is I prefer the max-1 value. Seems more
> logical. Could be set in config.h.in, though.

That's what I thought when I posted the small patch. However, there now
seems to be a consensus for a smaller segment size. Toms (for some reason
I called him John yesterday?) idea of 200000 (1.6Gb) works, and I know it
works ok on smaller segment sizes (I used 2Mb segments to see that it
worked past the second segment).

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