Message-ID: <429ED859.1070308@archonet.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:58:49 +0100
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dpandey@secf.com
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org,
	'PostgreSQL' <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: index row size 2728 exceeds btree maximum, 2713
References: <20050602071021.512DC5286E@svr1.postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050602071021.512DC5286E@svr1.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dinesh Pandey wrote:
> -----------+-----------------------+-----------
>   Column    |         Type       
> -----------+-----------------------+-----------
>  scan_id    | bigint                
>  host_ip    | character varying(15) 
>  port_num | integer               
>  plugin_id  | integer               
>  severity   | character varying(50) 
>  data       | text                  
> 
> Indexes:
>     "pk_scanned_port_info" PRIMARY KEY, btree (scan_id, host_ip, port_num,
> plugin_id, severity, data)
> 
> On inserting record I am getting this error "index row size 2728 exceeds
> btree maximum, 2713"

Well - the error message is clear enough. The question is, what to do.

Without knowing what the table "means", it's difficult to say what the 
primary-key should be, but it seems unlikely to include an 
unlimited-length text-field called "data".

If the data itself doesn't offer any suitable candidate keys (as can 
well be the case) then common practice is to generate a unique number 
and use that as an ID - in PostgreSQL's case by use of the SERIAL 
pseudo-type.

Does that help?
-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd