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

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Subject Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed
Date
Msg-id 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961DD2@m0114.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to 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  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>)
List pgsql-hackers
> 4. How exactly should a killed index tuple be marked on-disk? While there
> is one free bit available in IndexTupleData.t_info, I would prefer to use
> that bit to expand the index tuple size field to 14 bits instead of 13.
> (This would allow btree index entries to be up to 10K when BLCKSZ is 32K,
> rather than being hard-limited to 8K.)

While I agree that it might be handy to save this bit for future use,
I do not see any value in increasing the max key length from 8k,
especially when the new limit is then 10k. The limit is already 32 *
the max key size of some other db's, and even those 256 bytes are usually
sufficient.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: interfaces/ecpg/preproc reduce/reduce conflicts
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed