Subject | Re: [ib-support] hello |
---|---|
Author | Jason Chapman (JAC2) |
Post date | 2003-04-21T14:19:54Z |
To do this, you would create an empty database and prefil it will one table,
then fill the table with a large number of records, then drop the table.
The database will not release the used space. Just remember to create a
table struct and data that will not be compressed e.g. empty chars.
I have never had to do this, but the logic seems sound. In production I may
defrag my server as an alternative though :-)
JAC.
""Roberto Della Pasqua"" <roberto@...> wrote in message
news:001101c307e9$868d56d0$3232a8c0@pc01...
then fill the table with a large number of records, then drop the table.
The database will not release the used space. Just remember to create a
table struct and data that will not be compressed e.g. empty chars.
I have never had to do this, but the logic seems sound. In production I may
defrag my server as an alternative though :-)
JAC.
""Roberto Della Pasqua"" <roberto@...> wrote in message
news:001101c307e9$868d56d0$3232a8c0@pc01...
> sorry to disturb,50Mb
>
> I like to know if is possible to fewer the file fragmentation of a gdb db.
>
> Example: imagine a volume where we have both a gdb that is enlarging and a
> log file that's enlarging too.
>
> Actually I manage log files in win32 with memory mapped files and creating
> big chunks of data at time (1-50mbytes at once due to the hypothetical log
> file final size), so to avoid many little chunks potentially fragmented.
>
> it's possible to the same thing with firebird?
>
> For example: can firebird manage database in files that are "enlarging"
> at once?
> Or prebuild tables of 0.5GB?
>
> Or similar behavior?
>
> Very thanks to who help me (sorry for my bad english)
>
> Kind regards,
> Roberto
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>