On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote: >> >> So I've seen the header file where the 1600 column limit is defined > > > IIRC, that limit is directly related to block size in the header, so one > possible fix is to increase block size. AFAIK anything up to 64K blocks > should be safe.
Unless something's changed, I'm pretty sure things start breaking after 32k blocks. > BTW, keep in mind that if you're storing anything that's a varlena (anything > that's variable length, including NUMBER) where you have that many columns, > every single varlena is going to end up toasted. That's bound to have a > *serious* performance impact. Yeah, usually you're better off using arrayed types than 1600+ columns. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
