Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Given that the index can now also be multi-level, I don't expect to > see a 2G index. A 2G index forces the reader to load the entire 2G to > take advantage of the restart table. It may be more efficient for such > a reader to have had the writer make a mutli-level index, instead of a > single monster index block. And so perhaps the writer shouldn't make a > 2G index block that she is forced to buffer. :) Ah, OK, then it is sensible to have all table blocks to have the same format, and restart at the beginning to help readers would be a fine choice. For the same "let's make them as consistent" sake, I am tempted to suggest that we lift "the index block can be 2G" and have it also be within uint_24(), perhaps? Otherwise the readers would have to read (or mmap) the whole 2G.
