To weigh in an opinion on this subject. We look at Interbase as a low-end,
simple alternative for our customers. Despite the 'low-end' monicker, many
of these customers could hit 4 - 8 GB of data. I'd really rather not have
to spell out procedures for them on how to start splitting up their database
into multiple files. It's just one more thing to go wrong.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leyne, Sean [mailto:InterbaseArchitecture@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:42 PM
To: 'IB-Architect@egroups.com'
Subject: RE: [IB-Architect] Database files > 2GB.


Was reviewing some of the old messages, "looking up pet peeves", and
came upon this posting.

What realistically take to implement this feature?

To my mind, this would go a long way to addressing some questions
regarding IB's support for larger scale DB uses. It would also address
the needs of developers like Art Merts (I hope I spelled that right) who
have larger (70Gb in his case) databases.


Sean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Caro [mailto:ccaro@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 6:40 PM
> To: IB-Architect@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Database files > 2GB.
>
>
> Jim Starkey wrote:
> >
>
> > It is probably best, although I would like to
> > hear from Charlie, that this style of interface be maintained for
> > consistency.
> >
>
> It's still elegant after all these years! Altering secondary
> file names
> with DDL sounds fine to me.
>
> What bugs me is that we don't add the 2 lines of code to perform a
> 64-bit multiply (page_number * page_size) so that customers
> can have the
> choice of a single (or few) large database file(s) instead of 100
> secondary files. An Alter statement to rename that many files would
> still be an error-prone chore.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie
>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com