I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that
INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16.  It there a reason for this value
to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified?

Curious,
	Greg
10 Mar 2002 11:13:58 -0600
Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>
INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Greg Copeland wrote:

Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that
> INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16.  It there a reason for this value
> to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified?

Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:09:44 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that
> > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16.  It there a reason for this value
> > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified?
>
> Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it.

    Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
    function args?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:55:22 -0500 (EST)
Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Greg Copeland wrote:
> >
> > Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
> > -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that
> > > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16.  It there a reason for this value
> > > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified?
> >
> > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it.
> 
>     Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
>     function args?

Yes, they are related.  At least I think so.  Anyway, the parameter that
needs increasing is max function args.  I got mixed up there.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:34:54 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Greg Copeland wrote:
> > >
> > > Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
> > > -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > > > I'm looking through the index code and just happened to notice that
> > > > INDEX_MAX_KEYS is currently set to 16.  It there a reason for this value
> > > > to be at 16 or was it arbitrarily specified?
> > >
> > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it.
> >
> >     Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
> >     function args?
>
> Yes, they are related.  At least I think so.  Anyway, the parameter that
> needs increasing is max function args.  I got mixed up there.

    Then  again,  if  they are related, why not let the index max
    keys be automatically set according to the function  max  arg
    configuration?   Is  there any reason someone want's to limit
    it smaller than the system could technically handle?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:50:09 -0500 (EST)
Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > > Arbitrary, and there is discussion about increasing it.
> > >
> > >     Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
> > >     function args?
> >
> > Yes, they are related.  At least I think so.  Anyway, the parameter that
> > needs increasing is max function args.  I got mixed up there.
> 
>     Then  again,  if  they are related, why not let the index max
>     keys be automatically set according to the function  max  arg
>     configuration?   Is  there any reason someone want's to limit
>     it smaller than the system could technically handle?

I don't think so.  I don't remember if there is a NULL bitmap that is
fixed length for indexes.  I don't think so.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:11:24 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
>> function args?

> Yes, they are related.  At least I think so.

They have to be exactly the same, because both are tied to the size
of the oidvector type.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:59:09 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Wasn't it that this number had to be <= the maximum number of
> >> function args?
> 
> > Yes, they are related.  At least I think so.
> 
> They have to be exactly the same, because both are tied to the size
> of the oidvector type.

And because oidvector has to be a fixed length, we are have overhead in
increasing it?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:00:30 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS