18 Jun
2008
18 Jun
'08
4:28 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 06:18:02PM +0200, Niels Nes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:34:13PM +0100, Sam Mason wrote:
I'm not sure I thought of specifying it, every other database I've used hasn't been limited by address space size in this way :) We like to be special ;-).
there's always one isn't there :)
Indeed the current primary key check is (in out of memory situations) bad as it trashes swap (ie close to random access on a large column).
OK, how much of a change to the code do you think it would be to remove this behavior? I'm reasonably proficient in C, the thing that tends to take time is learning the structure of a new codebase. Sam