From: Jan Wieck <janwieck@Yahoo.com>
Message-Id: <200101161933.OAA11693@jupiter.jw.home>
Subject: Re: Re: [SQL] improve performance
In-Reply-To: <3A631A7C.922EAEAC@tm.ee> from Hannu Krosing at "Jan 15,
	2001 05:42:52 pm"
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:33:03 -0500 (EST)
CC: Alexaki Sofia <alexaki@ics.forth.gr>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've heard lots of people want to increase BLCKSZ, but you're the first
> > one who ever wanted to reduce it.  You sure you want to do this?  It's
> > going to make the maximum row length uncomfortably short.
>
> And it may even not work, as some system tables (that are also affected
> by this)
> may need the full 8k. AFAIK it has never been tested with BLCKSZ < 8k

    Except  for  two different sorted (but correct) results while
    selecting inherited tables in "misc", regression tests passed
    with 2K.

    Why  shouldn't  it work? All the catalogs that require really
    big data have toast tables now.

    Anyway, the 8K default BLCKSZ already restricts index  tuples
    to 2700 bytes.  So I wouldn't recommend it at all.


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