Subject | Re: [ib-support] key size too big for index |
---|---|
Author | Daniel Rail |
Post date | 2003-04-08T20:34:26Z |
Hi,
At April 8, 2003, 17:17, Robert DiFalco wrote:
too. And, for the moment I can survive without using indices on those
fields. But I have to admit, it would be nice and would increase
performance in some cases.
Having said that. I know that there are plans to increase the index
size limit in Firebird 2.0. The reason why it hasn't happened yet, is
because it requires a major ODS change, and major ODS changes are
planned for FB 2.0.
--
Best regards,
Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)
At April 8, 2003, 17:17, Robert DiFalco wrote:
> Wow, that's pretty restrictive. Well, our application has to run inYou're not the only one in this predicament, I'm in the same scenario
> multiple locales so we use UNICODE. Oddly enough, it seems like it uses
> a UTF8 encoding and there is no option for a 2 byte UNICODE encoding. Is
> this the case with other databases like DB2 and Oracle, that keys need
> to be less than 252 bytes?
too. And, for the moment I can survive without using indices on those
fields. But I have to admit, it would be nice and would increase
performance in some cases.
Having said that. I know that there are plans to increase the index
size limit in Firebird 2.0. The reason why it hasn't happened yet, is
because it requires a major ODS change, and major ODS changes are
planned for FB 2.0.
--
Best regards,
Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Group Inc. (www.accra.ca)
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)