| Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Question about limits in fb 2.5 or 3.0 |
|---|---|
| Author | Andrew Berg |
| Post date | 2009-02-09T21:11:55Z |
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Starkey <jstarkey@...>
Email addresses, IIRC, are limited to 64+1+255 = 320 chars. It is very reasonable to want to store these in indexable fields.
In a previous job, I had to store encrypted data in ElGamal pairs, which were Base64 encoded. (1024+1024)/6 = 341 bytes. In this case, it did not make sense to index them, but it was a lot easier to have them as normal row data instead of in a blob. Maybe it's just me, but I had a hard time passing blob data in or out of a Firebird stored procedure.
-andrew
From: Jim Starkey <jstarkey@...>
>> You want to have 4 (four) 4k utf8 strings as sp parameters or viewNot to pick nits, but I can think of two reasonable examples off the top of my head.
>> 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
>megabyte.
>
Email addresses, IIRC, are limited to 64+1+255 = 320 chars. It is very reasonable to want to store these in indexable fields.
In a previous job, I had to store encrypted data in ElGamal pairs, which were Base64 encoded. (1024+1024)/6 = 341 bytes. In this case, it did not make sense to index them, but it was a lot easier to have them as normal row data instead of in a blob. Maybe it's just me, but I had a hard time passing blob data in or out of a Firebird stored procedure.
-andrew