On 2014-05-12 10:07:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/12/2014 12:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>>So if I were to take Andres' > >>>complaint seriously at all, I'd be thinking in terms of "do we need to > >>>widen BlockNumber to int64?", not "how do we make this print as > >>>unsigned?". But I doubt such a proposal would fly, because of the > >>>negative impact on index sizes. > >Yea, I am not wild for that either. I guess migrating to a postgres with > >a larger blocksize is the next step. > > A larger block size won't buy you very much time either.
Well. If you mean 'a year or five with that... :) > We could steal some bits from the OffsetNumber portion of an ItemPointer. If > we assume the max. block size of 32kb, and that each Item takes at least 16 > bytes, you only need 11 bits for the offset number. That leaves 5 bits > unused, and if we use them to expand the block number to 37 bits in total, > that's enough for 1 PB with the default 8k block size. Hm. That's not a generally bad idea. I think we'll have to do that in a couple of years. Regardless of better partitioning. > But I concur that in practice, if you're dealing with 16TB tables, it's time > to partition. Well, we need to improve our partitioning for that to be viable for all relations. Not having usable foreign and unique keys makes it a pita in some cases. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
