From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
To: KÖPFERL Robert <robert.koepferl@sonorys.at>
Cc: 'dpandey@secf.com' <dpandey@secf.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, 'PostgreSQL' <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] index row size 2728 exceeds btree maximum, 27
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:40:53 +0100
Message-ID: <429EFE55.3050601@archonet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ED4E30DD9C43D5118DFB00508BBBA76EB16736@neptun.sonorys.at>
References: <ED4E30DD9C43D5118DFB00508BBBA76EB16736@neptun.sonorys.at>
KÖPFERL Robert wrote:
> To me it seems that the definer of this table missed the concept index ...
> or the concept database
> One usually looks up data using a key, but if the whole row is the key, what
> data shall be looked up.
> So short story long: Remove data from your index. The data column seems
> like the data to be looked up using the key
> (scan_id, host_ip, port_num, plugin_id, severity) or even less.
> Postgres is able to take several indices over distinct columns into account.
> Thus reducing the possible candidates to a hand full.
> So several indices are also an option
Actually, Dinesh didn't mention he was using this for the speed of
lookup. He'd defined the columns as being the PRIMARY KEY, presumably
because he feels they are/should be unique. Given that they are rows
from a logfile, I'm not convinced this is the case.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: dev@archonet.com, robert.koepferl@sonorys.at, dpandey@secf.com
Subject: Re: [SQL] index row size 2728 exceeds btree maximum, 27
In-Reply-To: <429EFE55.3050601@archonet.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox