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@retep.org.uk     Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgresJava PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf