Let's try it again. Please explain why your application bumps up
against the record size limit (which, incidentally, doesn't apply to
views). Do you have very large fields, very many fields, or both? If
you have large fields, why are they so large? And is any fixed size
acceptable?

This is your chance to influence database design. Generalities and
vague opinions don't quite cut it. Please explain what you're trying to
do so we can either agree suggest an alternative that might work better.



woodsmailbox wrote:

>> Please tell use what you are trying to do.
>>
>
> I'll try to make a quicklist of examples when it bites me again.
>
>
>> Most people find that
>> normalized databases don't come close to bumping into restrictions
>> (you'll find the 64K record limit very, very common among
>>
> databases).
>
> My dbs are normalized, that's not the problem. I can live with 64k
> records in _tables_, that's predictable and can be decided at design
> time. But then you use list() and group by and order by, and it only
> bites you at runtime.
>
> Views are supposed to denormalize, so it's only natural for them to
> have big row sizes, right? Same for stored proc parameters. Well, you
> can only practically fit 3 of those 4k utf8 strings in a view or sp
> params. That's pretty arbitrary from the user pov. I'm aware that it's
> very hard to remove those limitations, so this rant doesn't have much
> value for that cause, but at least it will make some people aware I
> guess. I wish I had found this in some FAQ before.
>
>
>
>> Blobs exist for two reasons. One is that some data items have no
>>
> upper
>
>> bound whatsoever. A Word document, for example, can be arbitrarily
>> long. The other is that fetching large objects is expensive, and if
>> large fields are not required for a statement, not fetching them is
>>
> a
>
>> huge win.
>>
>> In 1983, it made sense to make blobs separate types. In 2009, it
>>
> makes
>
>> more sense to bifurcate at runtime based on a length threshold, but
>> blobs and non-blobs sharing common semantics.
>>
>> That said, I think the problem may be in the way you are designing
>>
> your
>
>> application. Tell us about it. Maybe we can make some
>>
> suggestions...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>