Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed
Date
Msg-id 200205221714.g4MHEHc02933@saturn.janwieck.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com> writes:
> >     Also,  in  btree haven't we had some problems with index page
> >     splits when using entries large enought so that not at  least
> >     3 of them fit on a page?
>
> Right, that's why I said that the limit would only go up to ~10K anyway;
> btree won't take keys > 1/3 page.
   What's the point then? I mean, someone who needs more than 8K   will outgrow 10K in no time, and those cases are
topics for   comp.databases.abuse.brutal ...
 


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Internal state in sequence.c is a bad idea
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed