Obviously a tree containing many such pages would be awfully inefficient
to search, but I think a more common case is that there are a few wide
entries in an index of mostly short entries, and so pushing the hard
limit up a little would add some flexibility with little performance
cost in real-world cases.

Have I missed something?  Is this worth changing?

Not sure. I don't know that the difference between 2.7K and 3.9K would have ever made a difference to me in any real-world case.

If we're going to tinker with this code, it would be far more valuable to automatically truncate b-tree entries at, say, 1K so that they could be efficiently indexed.

Of course, a quick archives search of -SQL, -Newbie and -General would indicate how popular of an issue this is.

--Josh Berkus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to