Tom,
> Obviously a tree containing many such pages would be awfully inefficient
> to search, but I think a more common case is that there are a few wide
> entries in an index of mostly short entries, and so pushing the hard
> limit up a little would add some flexibility with little performance
> cost in real-world cases.
>
> Have I missed something? Is this worth changing?
Not sure. I don't know that the difference between 2.7K and 3.9K would
have ever made a difference to me in any real-world case.
If we're going to tinker with this code, it would be far more valuable
to automatically truncate b-tree entries at, say, 1K so that they could
be efficiently indexed.
Of course, a quick archives search of -SQL, -Newbie and -General would
indicate how popular of an issue this is.
--Josh Berkus
