Thread: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16. It there a reason for this value to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified? Curious,Greg
Greg Copeland wrote: Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE -- Start of PGP signed section. > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16. It there a reason for this value > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified? Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Greg Copeland wrote: > > Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE > -- Start of PGP signed section. > > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that > > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16. It there a reason for this value > > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified? > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it. Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of function args? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Jan Wieck wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Greg Copeland wrote: > > > > Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE > > -- Start of PGP signed section. > > > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that > > > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16. It there a reason for this value > > > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified? > > > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it. > > Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of > function args? Yes, they are related. At least I think so. Anyway, the parameter that needs increasing is max function args. I got mixed up there. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Greg Copeland wrote: > > > > > > Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE > > > -- Start of PGP signed section. > > > > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that > > > > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16. It there a reason for this value > > > > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified? > > > > > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it. > > > > Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of > > function args? > > Yes, they are related. At least I think so. Anyway, the parameter that > needs increasing is max function args. I got mixed up there. Then again, if they are related, why not let the index max keys be automatically set according to the function max arg configuration? Is there any reason someone want's to limit it smaller than the system could technically handle? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Jan Wieck wrote: > > > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it. > > > > > > Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of > > > function args? > > > > Yes, they are related. At least I think so. Anyway, the parameter that > > needs increasing is max function args. I got mixed up there. > > Then again, if they are related, why not let the index max > keys be automatically set according to the function max arg > configuration? Is there any reason someone want's to limit > it smaller than the system could technically handle? I don't think so. I don't remember if there is a NULL bitmap that is fixed length for indexes. I don't think so. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
>> function args?
> Yes, they are related. At least I think so.
They have to be exactly the same, because both are tied to the size
of the oidvector type.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > >> Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of > >> function args? > > > Yes, they are related. At least I think so. > > They have to be exactly the same, because both are tied to the size > of the oidvector type. And because oidvector has to be a fixed length, we are have overhead in increasing it? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026