Subject Re: Where field in (1,2,3) limitation to 1500
Author Alexander V.Nevsky
--- In, HBK <fotok@o...> wrote:
> When using "where field in (1,2,3) " I have noticed the 1500 table
> limit. This is mostly adequate but in some rare occasions it is wish
> able to have more table entries.
> Will this value be extended ?

I hope no :)

> Can anybody suggest a better way of obtaining this ?

Is this sequense of numbers obtained from random generator? If not -
the best is to formalize reason which you most probably missed. Build
table which reflects nature in the way where you can get this sequence
laying simple conditions (some attribute is equal, >, <, between,
starting etc) and join your query with this table applying condition.
This will be most effective way.
If it is impossible or too hard, use this for large sets of
"accidental" parameters:

Select ... From ...
Where :param containing field

and construct param like '~1~2~3~'. Don't overdo such a tricks, it is
not the best way to achieve good performance. BTW, In (...) too. As I
said, the best is to build more adequate model of data.

Best regards,