Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:17:12 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: davidmaxwell@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: btree index maximum row size
Message-ID: <20200313001712.GB2309@momjian.us>
References: <158075695971.1097.12385301555340285776@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <158075695971.1097.12385301555340285776@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb  3, 2020 at 07:09:19PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> 
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/limits.html
> Description:
> 
> Appendix K (PostgreSQL Limits) - doesn't mention the (btree) index row size
> limits. I think that it should.

Sorry for the delay in replying.  We do get questions about the btree
length limit occasionally, but practically the length limit usually
isn't a problem.  Unless you need ordered data, a hash index is a better
choice for long values than btree because the hashes are much shorter. 
Expression indexes can also help.

What is your use-case for indexing very long values?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +