Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bAGfJ-000532-Uw for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:03:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bAGfJ-0003s6-Ht for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:03:29 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bAGfJ-0003rw-4C for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:03:29 +0000 Received: from zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com ([192.198.93.228]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bAGfG-0004Pv-5P for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:03:28 +0000 Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (127.37.197.104.bc.googleusercontent.com [104.197.37.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zmcc-5-mx.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AF49520229; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180E2C2094; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id D44VK330yleM; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE57FC2095; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:03:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com Received: from zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id AdTW3Mey0Ye2; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-u.redhat.com [66.187.233.203]) by zmcc-5-mta-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B5ECC1F86; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: array size exceeds the maximum allowed (1073741823) when building a json To: Nicolas Paris , "David G. Johnston" References: Cc: pgsql-performance From: Josh Berkus Message-ID: <5756C618.1070802@agliodbs.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:03:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 06/07/2016 08:42 AM, Nicolas Paris wrote: > =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8BYou have to do something different. Using multiple= columns and/or > multiple rows might we workable. >=20 >=20 > =E2=80=8BCertainly. Kind of disappointing, because I won't find any json = builder > as performant as postgresql.=E2=80=8B That's nice to hear. > Will this 1GO restriction is supposed to increase in a near future ?=E2= =80=8B Not planned, no. Thing is, that's the limit for a field in general, not just JSON; changing it would be a fairly large patch. It's desireable, but AFAIK nobody is working on it. --=20 -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) --=20 Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance