Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Does 2.0.3.12981 version requires smaller instead or bigger index keys? ref/eDN6063215442 |
---|---|
Author | Helen Borrie |
Post date | 2007-12-12T08:29:54Z |
At 07:01 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
./heLen
>Hello to allNeither smaller nor bigger: it hasn't changed. The max key size is one-quarter of the page_size. So a key of 204-bytes + a few for the composite won't exceed even the old 252-byte limit or 1/4 of the smallest possible page-size.
>
>
>
>I was working with version 2.0.0.12748 and now with version 2.0.3.12981 the
>follow index cannot be creatred:
>
>CREATE INDEX CODES_IDX2 ON CODES (KEY_, RES_);
>
>
>
>The error message is:
>
>This operation is not defined for system tables.
>
>unsuccessful metadata update.
>
>key size exceeds implementation restriction for index "CODES_IDX2".
>
>
>
>Key_ and res_ fields are varchar(100),
>
>
>
>Character set: DEFAULT CHARACTER SET NONE
>
>
>
>What happen? Does 2.0.3.12981 version requires smaller instead or bigger
>index keys?
>Where am I wrong?Typos in the field declarations? Using an old client? Wrong message file? Inadvertently running an older server? Or maybe you're doing this in a script, where you haven't committed the table declaration yet?
./heLen