Subject Re: [ib-support] IN limitation to 1500 ?
Author Artur Anjos
hehehehe. I was just playing with you. For some reason, I noticed that you
take this 'Temporary Tables Subject' personally, and it makes you scream....
I was just a few seconds to change that subject and put the word 'Bug' on
it.... ;)

It was a joke, Ann....

I don't use any other database that FB. I even don't use IB. But I had
follow up all the discussions that comes here, and this temporary tables
subject is one that I like also.

So, without a joke now:

- I really don't think that someone will really need more than 1500 values
in a IN statment. So my modest opinion is that the FB team don't need to
spend so much time cutting this limit. The person who post that problem here
(I don't remember is name) is now aware of the problem and he got lot's of
turn arounds.

- I know that Temporary Tables are hard to implement, and I don't see them
as a priority also. But, in this particular case, I think that more
discussions should be apropriate. Not for version 2, also in my opinion.
There are other things that I think that are a priority, like the INSERT
statment could return some values back, or the new field AutoGenerator or
AutoIncrement (just for giving some examples).

The only thing I suggested until now, and for me IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY,
it's changing the name of this newsgroup (as well the others related) to fb-
instead of ib- just to help give FB the image it needs to have to achieve
more popularity. I have post this sugestion to this newsgroup a few weeks
ago, and no one reply to that post!

What we have here is a community of people using FB, and sometimes helping
people that uses IB. The name of this newsgroup show us the oposite.

Have an happy new year!

I'll be here in 2002 helping the fb community as much as I could. And,
hehehe, sometimes posting something just to make you scream. One of things
that makes this newsgroup funny are expressions like 'it's so refreshing...
like sleeping in clean sheets' that you use a lot, and we never forget!

Artur Anjos

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann W. Harrison" <aharrison@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ib-support] IN limitation to 1500 ?

> I wrote:
> > > A predefined table consisting of a session identifier (aka a gen_id
> > > assigned to the session) and a value.
> Baiting me, Artur Anjos wrote:
> >a) A predefined table that it's needed just for a temporary job?
> All queries are temporary - all tables exist to support their needs.
> At the moment, "temporary" tables are expensive to create (separate
> transaction, allocating index root and pointer pages, rewriting the
> rdb$database table ... and creating one uses a relation id - and the
> max relation id is 32768 and numbers are not reused unless the database
> is backed up and restored. We could implement "real" temporary tables
> that avoided those limitations, but we haven't.
> >b) A predefined table that it's needed just for a limitation of IB/FB IN
> >1500 values?
> There is a comment in the code indicating that the 1500 limit fixed
> bug 10061, but with no indication of the nature of bug 10061. This
> is not the time to increase the limit for FB1. However, increasing
> the limit is quite possible for the next release, while I doubt that
> we can agree on specifications and implementation of temporary tables
> that quickly.
> >c) A predefined table that it's needed just for using with ugly
> >like 'IN( 1500+ values )'?
> A workaround is a workaround.
> >- Why do I need temporary tables?
> >
> >Ops! I mean to say:
> >
> >- Hehehe. Why do I need temporary tables?
> Well, possibly you cut your teeth on a different database system
> whose concurrency constraints made temporary tables necessary and
> you haven't got your head around Firebird well enough to look for
> more appropriate solutions. Hehehe...
> Regards,
> Ann
> We have answers.