Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191
Date
Msg-id 8326.1289618101@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191  (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>)
List pgsql-general
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 09:48 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Thoughts, folks? Does this matter in practice, since anything you'd want
>> to index will in practice be small enough or a candidate for full-text
>> indexing?

> I have run into this problem maybe 3 times in my whole career, precisely
> because if you are dealing with text that big, you move to full text
> search.

Yeah, the real question here is exactly what do you think a btree index
on a large text column will get you?  It seems fairly unlikely that
either simple equality or simple range checks are very useful for such
data.  I guess there's some use case for uniqueness checks, which we've
seen people approximate by unique-indexing the md5 hash of the column
value.

BTW, the 8K limit applies after possible in-line compression, so the
actual data value causing the failure was likely considerably longer
than 10K.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Clark C. Evans"
Date:
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?