Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-26 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 07/12/2012 06:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Adrian Klaver writes: >>> >>> If a table has a maximum size and rows have size then at some point you >>> will reach a limit on number of rows per table. >> >> >> I think the "unlimited" should b

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-26 Thread Bartosz Dmytrak
2012/7/26 Bruce Momjian > > What is the pg_class table size limit then? Is that really helping > anyone? > > Fist of all - thanks for Your attentions, I really appreciate it. is that helping? - as it has been mentioned before: a small audience has noticed that fact, so probably not. I think it i

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 08:54:53PM +0200, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote: > 2012/7/13 Chris Angelico > > > Does that help? > > > Sure :) > I know what unlimited means, but I suggest to change docs to be more accurate. > Those "limits" are huge (e.g. number of indexes limited by pg_class table > siz

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-15 Thread Bartosz Dmytrak
2012/7/13 Chris Angelico > > > Does that help? > > Sure :) I know what unlimited means, but I suggest to change docs to be more accurate. Those "limits" are huge (e.g. number of indexes limited by pg_class table size), but still exists. it is like the famous Henry Ford's color choose: *"Any custo

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-13 Thread Chris Angelico
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Mike Christensen wrote: > Wait, are you suggesting Olive Garden doesn't *actually* offer > unlimited breadsticks? I'm not American, and have only been to Olive Garden once (visited your country and tried to cram way way too much into not nearly enough time), so I

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-13 Thread Mike Christensen
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote: >> I think there should be an explanation what *unlimited* really means. >> > > Unlimited doesn't mean you can have infinite of something, but just > that that specific attribute does

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-13 Thread Chris Angelico
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote: > I think there should be an explanation what *unlimited* really means. > Unlimited doesn't mean you can have infinite of something, but just that that specific attribute doesn't have its own limit. For instance, if I fly to England, I am al

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-12 Thread Bartosz Dmytrak
2012/7/12 David Johnston > > > How about saying: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size" > > I am sorry for delay. My intention was to start discussion about unlimited number of rows. I like this idea: "No Fixed Limit - see Table Size" Another, maybe only academic, discussion is about maximum number o

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-12 Thread David Johnston
On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:44, Tom Lane wrote: > > We could perhaps replace "unlimited" by the result of dividing the max > table size by the minimum row size. I'm not sure that would be > particularly helpful though, since most tables are probably a good deal > wider than the minimum row size, and

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-12 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 07/12/2012 06:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Adrian Klaver writes: On 07/12/2012 12:39 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you were actually asking in your initial question. I understood it to be asking about the conflict between the two statements below: Maxi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-12 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver writes: > On 07/12/2012 12:39 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you were actually asking in >> your initial question. > I understood it to be asking about the conflict between the two > statements below: > Maximum Table Size32 TB > Maximum

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-12 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 07/12/2012 12:39 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 07/12/2012 02:16 PM, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote: it doesn't metter - conclusion is: table is growing. You are right, for other purposes it should be better to check total size. In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you were actually asking in

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-12 Thread Craig Ringer
On 07/12/2012 02:16 PM, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote: it doesn't metter - conclusion is: table is growing. You are right, for other purposes it should be better to check total size. In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you were actually asking in your initial question. -- Craig Ringer

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-11 Thread Bartosz Dmytrak
2012/7/12 Craig Ringer > >> I suspect that's a pretty slow way to try to fill your DB up. You're > doing individual INSERTs and possibly in individual transactions (unsure, I > don't use PgAdmin); it's not going to be fast. > Try COPYing rows in using psql. I'd do it in batches via shell script

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-11 Thread Craig Ringer
On 07/12/2012 05:01 AM, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote: 1. Create Table: CREATE TABLE test.limits("RowValue" text) WITH (OIDS=FALSE, FILLFACTOR=100); 2. Fill table (I used pgScript available in pgAdmin); I suspect that's a pretty slow way to try to fill your DB up. You're doing individual INSERTs and

[GENERAL] PostgreSQL limitations question

2012-07-11 Thread Bartosz Dmytrak
Hi All I found PG limitations (http://www.postgresql.org/about/): - Maximum Rows per Table - Unlimited - Maximum Table Size - 32 TB My question is: how is it possible to *reach* unlimited rows in table? I did a test: 1. Create Table: CREATE TABLE test.limits("RowValue" text) WITH (OIDS=FAL