Error index row requires bytes maximum size is 8191

I am trying to insert a query with image as binary value in postgresql, but showing this message «index row requires (some large) bytes, maximum size is 8191». The field for storing the binary value is given as text.

The code i used to compress and create binary format of the image is give below:

$source_img = $imgdocument["tmp_name"];
$destination_img = '../temp/cancel_doc_image_'.trim($details['val']).'_'.$key.'.jpg';
$compressed = compress($source_img, $destination_img, 10);            
$photo_get  = file_get_contents($destination_img);
list($width, $height, $image_type) = getimagesize($destination_img);
$mime_photo= image_type_to_mime_type($image_type);
$photo_en = base64_encode($photo_get);
$details['document'][$key]['imgdocument'] = data:".$mime_photo.";base64,".$photo_en;

The function for compression of image what is used is given below

function compress($source, $destination, $quality)
{
    $info = getimagesize($source);

    if ($info['mime'] == 'image/jpeg')
    {
        $image = imagecreatefromjpeg($source);
    }   
    elseif ($info['mime'] == 'image/gif') 
    {
        $image = imagecreatefromgif($source);
    }
    elseif ($info['mime'] == 'image/png') 
    {
        $image = imagecreatefrompng($source);
    }
    imagejpeg($image, $destination, $quality);
    return $destination;
}

Image

Обсуждение: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

What we do with the text that I have mentioned is, we have search functionality on the text. The user enters some keywords and then the application should be able to search for all the text that matches the key word.

On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 09:48 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:

Thoughts, folks? Does this matter in practice, since anything you’d want
to index will in practice be small enough or a candidate for full-text
indexing?

I have run into this problem maybe 3 times in my whole career, precisely
because if you are dealing with text that big, you move to full text
search.

Yeah, the real question here is exactly what do you think a btree index
on a large text column will get you?

About the only useful case I can see is with text data of very irregular size. The vast majority is small, but there are a few massively bigger items. It’d be nice if the index method had a fallback for items too big to index in this case, such as a prefix match and heap recheck.

Of course, I’ve never run into this in practice, and if I did I’d be wondering if I had my schema design quite right. I can’t imagine that the mostly aesthetic improvement of eliminating this indexing limitation would be worth the effort. I’d never ask or want anyone to waste their time on it, and don’t intend to myself. Most of the interesting «big text» indexing problems are solved by tsearch and/or functional indexes.

Источник

Thread: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

Re: index row requires 10040 bytes, maximum size is 8191

What we do with the text that I have mentioned is, we have searchВ functionalityВ on the text. The user enters some keywords and then the application should be able to search for all the text that matches the key word.В

On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 09:48 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:

Thoughts, folks? Does this matter in practice, since anything you’d want
to index will in practice be small enough or a candidate for full-text
indexing?

I have run into this problem maybe 3 times in my whole career, precisely
because if you are dealing with text that big, you move to full text
search.

Yeah, the real question here is exactly what do you think a btree index
on a large text column will get you?

About the only useful case I can see is with text data of very irregular size. The vast majority is small, but there are a few massively bigger items. It’d be nice if the index method had a fallback for items too big to index in this case, such as a prefix match and heap recheck.

Of course, I’ve never run into this in practice, and if I did I’d be wondering if I had my schema design quite right. I can’t imagine that the mostly aesthetic improvement of eliminating this indexing limitation would be worth the effort. I’d never ask or want anyone to waste their time on it, and don’t intend to myself. Most of the interesting «big text» indexing problems are solved by tsearch and/or functional indexes.

Источник

Error during committing data: ERROR #54000 index row requires 828856 bytes, maximum size is 8191 #26

Ok, this is a strange one:

(Output is unfortunately to long for my terminal, so I can not post more context here.)

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

Piped the output into a to understand what is going on:

Looks to me that it creates a far to large commit_sha which the table does not accept.

That column is of type bytea :

Seems to me the generated data and the index clash here in some way.

Indexing a bytea column isn’t super useful in real world since it a datatype that holds large blob objects like images etc, so do we need to fix this ? or do we reduce the size here to be with the limit of index https://github.com/pivotal-gss/mock-data/blob/0fa82557d024ea6ba9355b63ca7a6bd1eba9ff56/engine.go#L157

Gitlab seems to think so in their schema 🤷‍♀

Am I understanding correctly that this is caused by the index only?
Could this become another rule — «if there is an index, generate a shorter byte value that can fit into the index» — maybe?

Yup its the index on the bytea column, I believe its safer and easier to reduce the size.

Anyways its a mock data so who cares on what is the data 🤪

Seems like this is not easy like I thought, I reduced to the lowest values where we can expect a geninue Bytea type data

anything lower than this is basically a lot of fake text, which defeat the purpose, even at this settings the index creation ends up with error

Again, I understand we might not able to dictate on what data type user need to use since the user can add any type of data onto their data type ( like user can store text on Bytea data type ), but for the type of data we are introducing using our tool it works to have a index below which reduces the size of index

Yes we do have a bug with multiple brackets (#24).

At this point, lets close this issue as wont fix, since for the type of data we are introducing to Bytea data type index is not possible due to postgres size restriction, I will add that to our readme as known issue.

Источник

Обсуждение: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: index row requires more memory than default(8191)

org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: index row requires more memory than default(8191)

Re: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: index row requires more memory than default(8191)

I am trying to use PostgreSQL in our existing project to improve the
performance and make it fiendly with JSON. I have done some research on the
PostgerSQL and trying to integrate it into our application. But I am facing
some problem when I tried to insert the large json document into the table.
It is working with small set of json document but fails with the large data.
The following is the error dispalyed in the console when inserting the data.

org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: index row requires 11936 bytes,
maximum size is 8191
at
org.postgresql.core.v3.QueryExecutorImpl.receiveErrorResponse(QueryExecutorImpl.java:2284)
at
org.postgresql.core.v3.QueryExecutorImpl.processResults(QueryExecutorImpl.java:2003)
at
org.postgresql.core.v3.QueryExecutorImpl.execute(QueryExecutorImpl.java:200)
at org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.execute(PgStatement.java:424)
at org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.executeWithFlags(PgStatement.java:321)
at org.postgresql.jdbc.PgStatement.executeUpdate(PgStatement.java:297)
at com.practice.PracticeClass.main(PracticeClass.java:28)
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: index row requires 11936 bytes,
maximum size is 8191

In the above error, It is saying memory is not sufficient to create an
index. I am new to this Postgres. I am not creating any index when inserting
the json document. I am thinking it is internally creating an index for the
column.

Table creation: Create table sample(id serial, info jsonb);

Could any tell me how to resolve this error or how to configure to increase
the memory to insert large data.

Источник

Index row requires 9324 bytes maximum size is 8191

I am trying to index a field in my database of size about 16K rows, but i m
getting this error.

» Index row requires 9324 bytes maximum size is 8191 «

Can anyone please guide me how to remove this error.

Also, average time to search for a query in a table is taking about 15
seconds. I have done indexing but the time is not reducing.
Is there any way to reduce the time to less than 1 sec .
The type of indexing which I am performing on the field is btree. My field
contains large text. Is there any more suitable indexing type ??

Responses

• Re: Index row requires 9324 bytes maximum size is 8191 at 2009-09-20 02:58:43 from Euler Taveira de Oliveira
• Re: Index row requires 9324 bytes maximum size is 8191 at 2009-09-20 05:47:08 from Pavel Stehule
• Re: Index row requires 9324 bytes maximum size is 8191 at 2009-09-21 08:38:38 from Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
• Re: Index row requires 9324 bytes maximum size is 8191 at 2009-09-21 08:51:22 from Florian Weimer

Browse pgsql-performance by date

Copyright © 1996-2023 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Источник

That would require significant changes, and I doubt it can be done easily.

See these excerpts from src/include/access/itup.h:

/*
 * Index tuple header structure
 *
 * All index tuples start with IndexTupleData.  If the HasNulls bit is set,
 * this is followed by an IndexAttributeBitMapData.  The index attribute
 * values follow, beginning at a MAXALIGN boundary.
 *
 * Note that the space allocated for the bitmap does not vary with the number
 * of attributes; that is because we don't have room to store the number of
 * attributes in the header.  Given the MAXALIGN constraint there's no space
 * savings to be had anyway, for usual values of INDEX_MAX_KEYS.
 */

typedef struct IndexTupleData
{
    ItemPointerData t_tid;      /* reference TID to heap tuple */

    /* ---------------
     * t_info is laid out in the following fashion:
     *
     * 15th (high) bit: has nulls
     * 14th bit: has var-width attributes
     * 13th bit: AM-defined meaning
     * 12-0 bit: size of tuple
     * ---------------
     */

    unsigned short t_info;      /* various info about tuple */

} IndexTupleData;               /* MORE DATA FOLLOWS AT END OF STRUCT */
[...]

/*
 * t_info manipulation macros
 */
#define INDEX_SIZE_MASK 0x1FFF
#define INDEX_AM_RESERVED_BIT 0x2000    /* reserved for index-AM specific
                                         * usage */
#define INDEX_VAR_MASK  0x4000
#define INDEX_NULL_MASK 0x8000

The limit you are hitting is INDEX_SIZE_MASK, and to increase it, you’d have to change the tuple header so that t_info has more than two bytes.

Perhaps it is as simple as that, but it might have repercussions in other parts of the code.