Subject | Re: [ib-support] key size too small |
---|---|
Author | Daniel Rail |
Post date | 2003-03-06T12:13:49Z |
Hi,
to be 256 bytes. But also, I think it might also depend on the page
size of your database. What is the page size that you defined?
Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.accramed.ca)
> Hello!This should've been accepted, because the maximum key size is supposed
> I need to create an unique check on a table:
> alter table GROUPS
> add constraint UNIQUE_GROUP
> unique ([NAME1], [NAME2])
> This operation is not defined for system tables.
> unsuccessful metadata update.
> key size too big for index UNIQUE_GROUP.
> Both name1 and 2 are of the following domain:
> CREATE DOMAIN NAME AS
> VARCHAR(40)
> COLLATE EN_US;
> Charset is ISO8859_1
> It does not seem to me that 40 characters for a name is outrageously
> large field size. Or is it?
to be 256 bytes. But also, I think it might also depend on the page
size of your database. What is the page size that you defined?
> I'm currently using triggers for the same functionality. However itAs mentioned above, the index size limit is 256 bytes.
> would be nice to use the feature intended exactly for this.
> IIRC the limit was even lower on multi-byte character sets. Again IIRC
> it was divided with max size - 3 times smaller in case of unicode_fss.
> That's not enough for even one field sometimes.
> And now for the point - is increasing this 'key size' being consideredIt is considered for FB 2.0.
> in the near future?
Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.accramed.ca)