> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Peter T Mount wrote:
> > Anyhow, I'm about to start the test, using RELSEG_SIZE set to 243968 which
> > works out to be 1.6Gb. That should stay well away from the overflow
> > problem.
>
> Hi,
> I just did a checkout of the cvs code, hardcoded RELSEG_SIZE to 243968,
> and it works beautifully now!
>
> I imported about 2.2GB of data(table file size) and it looks like this:
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 1998585856 Feb 7 16:22 mcrl3_1
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 219611136 Feb 7 16:49 mcrl3_1.1
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 399368192 Feb 7 16:49
> mcrl3_1_partnumber_index
Great. This has been on the TODO list for quite some time. Glad it is
fixed.
>
> And it works fine.. I did some selects on data that should have ended up
> in the .1 file, and it works great. The best thing about it, is that it
> seems at least as fast as MSSQL on the same data, if not faster..
>
> It did take like 45 minutes to create that index.. Isn't that a bit
> long(AMD K6-2 350MHz)? :)
>
> Suggestion: How hard would it be to make copy tablename FROM 'somefile'
> give some feedback? Either some kind of percentage or just print out
> something after each 10k row chunks or something like that.
We could, but it would then make the output file larger.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026