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

On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Peter T Mount wrote:
> Anyhow, I'm about to start the test, using RELSEG_SIZE set to 243968 which
> works out to be 1.6Gb. That should stay well away from the overflow
> problem.

Hi,
I just did a checkout of the cvs code, hardcoded RELSEG_SIZE to 243968,
and it works beautifully now!

I imported about 2.2GB of data(table file size) and it looks like this:
-rw-------   1 postgres postgres 1998585856 Feb  7 16:22 mcrl3_1
-rw-------   1 postgres postgres 219611136 Feb  7 16:49 mcrl3_1.1
-rw-------   1 postgres postgres 399368192 Feb  7 16:49
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..

It did take like 45 minutes to create that index.. Isn't that a bit
long(AMD K6-2 350MHz)?  :)

Suggestion:  How hard would it be to make copy tablename FROM 'somefile'
give some feedback?  Either some kind of percentage or just print out
something after each 10k row chunks or something like that.

Thanks,
Ole Gjerde