	> 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.

How about using 1 Gb. A lot of Unices have the ulimit set to 1 Gb by
default.
It would also be nice for the looks, easy to calculate size, nicer to
storage managers,
etc ....

Andreas


Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:05:39 +0100 
Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas.Zeugswetter@telecom.at>
Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 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.
> 
> How about using 1 Gb. A lot of Unices have the ulimit set to 1 Gb by
> default.
> It would also be nice for the looks, easy to calculate size, nicer to
> storage managers,
> etc ....

Could be an idea.

How about making it a compile time option (like the blocksize), defaulting
to 1Gb?

Peter

-- 
       Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk
      Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
 Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf


Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:16:57 +0000 (GMT)
Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 