On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 06:14:28PM +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:52:02 -0400
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 07:58:21AM +0200, CPT wrote:
> > > Hi all;
> > >
> > > We are running a multi-TB bioinformatics system on PostgreSQL and
> > > use a denormalized schema in
> > > places with a lot of tsvectors aggregated together for centralized
> > > searching. This is
> > > very important to the performance of the system. These aggregate
> > > many documents (sometimes tens of thousands), many of which contain
> > > large numbers of references to other documents. It isn't uncommon
> > > to have tens of thousands of lexemes. The tsvectors hold mixed
> > > document id and natural language search information (all f which
> > > comes in from the same documents).
> > >
> > > Recently we have started hitting the 1MB limit on tsvector size. We
> > > have found it possible to
> > > patch PostgreSQL to make the tsvector larger but this changes the
> > > on-disk layout. How likely is
> > > it that either the tsvector size could be increased in future
> > > versions to allow for vectors up to toastable size (1GB logical)? I
> > > can't imagine we are the only ones with such a problem. Since, I
> > > think, changing the on-disk layout might not be such a good idea,
> > > maybe it would be worth considering having a new bigtsvector type?
> > >
> > > Btw, we've been very impressed with the extent that PostgreSQL has
> > > tolerated all kinds of loads we have thrown at it.
> >
> > Can anyone on hackers answer this question from June?
> >
>
> Hi, I'm working on patch now that removes this limit without changes (or
> small changes) of on-disk layout. I think it'll be ready during this
> month.
Oh, great, thanks.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
