Re: Maximum table size

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:04:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> It's a holdover.  As to how certain we are that all the
> signed-vs-unsigned bugs are fixed, who have you heard from running a
> greater-than-16Tb table?  And how often have they done CLUSTER, REINDEX,
> or even VACUUM FULL on it?  AFAIK we have zero field experience to
> justify promising that it works.

BTW, I applied CLUSTER to a 1.6 GB tables a couple of days ago for the
first time and man did it take a long time.  The current code is
way too inefficient for rebuilding the table.  Maybe another approach
should be used.  I don't think clustering a 16 TB table is a serious
proposition.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.