On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 07:09:19PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/limits.html > Description:
> Appendix K (PostgreSQL Limits) - doesn't mention the (btree) index row size
> limits. I think that it should.
Sorry for the delay in replying. We do get questions about the btree
length limit occasionally, but practically the length limit usually
isn't a problem. Unless you need ordered data, a hash index is a better
choice for long values than btree because the hashes are much shorter.
Expression indexes can also help.
What is your use-case for indexing very long values?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:17 PM Bruce Momjian <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in replying. We do get questions about the btree
> length limit occasionally, but practically the length limit usually
> isn't a problem.
Technically the limitation is documented elsewhere, since it is a
limitation of the B-Tree access method specifically. However, I think
that there is a good practical argument to be made for including it
here as well.