X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5238352838 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:34:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95107-08 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:34:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31A89528CB for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:34:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 2959 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2005 19:33:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:33:24 -0500 From: Bruno Wolff III To: Richard Huxton Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=D6PFERL?= Robert , "'dpandey@secf.com'" , pgsql-general@postgresql.org, 'PostgreSQL' Subject: Re: [SQL] index row size 2728 exceeds btree maximum, 27 Message-ID: <20050602193324.GA2861@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Wolff III , Richard Huxton , =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=D6PFERL?= Robert , "'dpandey@secf.com'" , pgsql-general@postgresql.org, 'PostgreSQL' References: <429EFE55.3050601@archonet.com> <20050602163542.GA23150@wolff.to> <429F3B21.9020209@archonet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <429F3B21.9020209@archonet.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.008 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/112 X-Sequence-Number: 78820 On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 18:00:17 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote: > > Certainly, but if the text in the logfile row is the same, then hashing > isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. That's the root of my > concern, and something only Dinesh knows. Sure it is. Because the hash can be used in the primary key instead of of the error message which should reduce the size of the key enough that he can use a btree index.