Subject Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Question about limits in fb 2.5 or 3.0
Author Jim Starkey
woodsmailbox wrote:
>> This is your chance to influence database design.
> Dmitry made its point clear about this, which I understand, and I have
> no hopes in that direction.
Dmitry doesn't speak for Firebird, the open source database community,
or the larger database community. I'm personally in the process of
re-inventing the next generation of relational database technology, and
I'd like to hear what you have to say.
>> Generalities and
>> vague opinions don't quite cut it.
> You want to have 4 (four) 4k utf8 strings as sp parameters or view
> columns (you'd use 8k if you could). If that seems absurd around here,
> then I'm starting to think I'm in the wrong boat. The first statement
> is a fact, the second is an opinion :)
OK, I don't understand 4K utf8 strings. I've never heard of anything
that was over 250 characters that didn't have the potential to go to a

Second, views have nothing to do with the 64KB record limitation. Views
are handled symbolically and are never actually materialized. The 64KB
limitation is on physical record size. As as been said, it could be
raised if there were a good reason, but so far, nobody has presented a
good reason.
> Please explain what you're trying to
>> do so we can either agree suggest an alternative that might work
> better.
> I appreciate it, but with all due respect, I'm not asking for it.
> Please don't get me wrong -- if this were an embedded system, then,
> sure, I'd be glad to play the smart engineer and talk alternatives.
> But in an enterprise environment where I'm doing dozens of tables,
> views and sps each day, I just want space for maneuver. Your tools
> must let you abuse them when you need to, not the other way around :)
> Thanks for your patience. If you have more to spare, I'm gonna try
> explaining myself better in a more elaborate post.

I've got lots of patience. Aren't I famous for my patience? (not)