I ran some experiments, and with the queries that I was
testing with, the clustered rtree was about 30% faster than
the unclustered one.
> This isn't really relevant to your main point, but: since an rtree
> doesn't have an associated sort order, it's not clear to me that this
> operation makes
I set BLCKSZ to 32768, as described in FAQ question 4.6, and
recompiled and reinstalled the system, and I am still
getting the error "Tuple is too big: size 9588, max size
8140".
Any ideas why that would be? Is there also something else I
need to do?
Thank you.
Ken
Well, I solved this problem by doing two things:
1. I used 16384 instead of 32768. I can't imagine this made
any difference.
2. I ran "make clean" before running "make". Maybe there is
a problem with the dependencies in the makefiles?
Ken
Kenneth Been wrote:
>
I set BLCKSZ to 32768, as described in FAQ question 4.6,
recompiled and reinstalled the system, and ran initdb, and I
am still getting the error "Tuple is too big: size 9588, max
size 8140".
I am using 7.0.2 on a modified RedHat 6.0 (with glibc
upgraded to 2.1.3).
Any ideas why that would be? I
