Thanks for the hint about inserting values in a table but for
specific reasons we cannot do that.

I will take a look on the history.

Since now servers are very fast, what about removing this
limitation ? Is it so dangerous ?

Dev.

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Alexandre Benson Smith
<iblist@t...> wrote:

> develop111 wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >OK, here is the suggestion/wish.
> >
> >We currently have a complex database structure and a lot of
> >information (almost access rights) are all managed directly into
> >memory. So, we often have to use the clause "IN" in our queries

such

> >as:
> >
> >SELECT * FROM EMPLOYEES WHERE EMPLOYEE_ID IN (Item1, Item2,...
> >Item1500);
> >
> >The problem is that the "IN" clause has a limitation of 1500

items.

> >So, it gives us a lot of problems.
> >
> >Do you know if that limitation could be removed in a next version

of

> >Firebird ?
> >
> >I already know that I could use the "IN" clause in sub-queries

but

> >this way is not good enough for us.
> >
> >Thanks to all.
> >
> >
> Hi,
>
> This question was discussed sometimes on the list, take a look on

the

> history, to see a lot of thoughts...
>
> Did you tried to insert these memory values to a table, and make a

join

> instead of an "in" ?
>
> insert into My_Relation_Table values(1);
>
> insert into My_Relation_Table values(2);
>
> insert into My_Relation_Table values(3);
> ...
>
> insert into My_Relation_Table values(9999);
>
> SELECT
> *
> FROM
> Employees
> join My_Relation_Table on (My_Relation_Table.EmployeeID =

Employees.EmployeeID)

>
> The limit will be vanished and I think you will have a better

performance...

>
> You could use CURRENT_TRANSACTION and other system variables to
> distinguish between diferente users/process
>
> See you !
>
> --
>
> Alexandre Benson Smith
> Development
> THOR Software e Comercial Ltda.
> Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
> www.thorsoftware.com.br