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 820E852867; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:25:21 -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 61983-09; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:25:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA0052824; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:25:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com (84-51-143-99.archon037.adsl.metronet.co.uk [84.51.143.99]) by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 62D4340DCB9; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:25:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C880615ED6; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:22:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mainbox [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22228-03; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:22:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (client17.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B8C15ED5; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:22:21 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <42A0052C.6040505@archonet.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:22:20 +0100 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruno Wolff III 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 References: <429EFE55.3050601@archonet.com> <20050602163542.GA23150@wolff.to> <429F3B21.9020209@archonet.com> <20050602193324.GA2861@wolff.to> In-Reply-To: <20050602193324.GA2861@wolff.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.053 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/136 X-Sequence-Number: 78844 Bruno Wolff III wrote: > 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. Sorry - obviously not being clear. Since he's using the index via a primary key he'll need the columns that key is over to be unique. If the columns fail that test in the real world, hashing will replace the index-size error with an "unable to insert duplicates" error. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd