Subject | Firebird 3.0 database page size |
---|---|
Author | lmatusz |
Post date | 2011-04-28T20:19:28Z |
Hi to all.
Does anybody knows if database page size in Firebird 3.0 will be expanded to 32768 bytes ? This will allow to store greater number of records per table.
For about average record size little greater then 1kB it would be above 14.5 G records (while for 16384 it is 3,5 G records). This would give us upper limit for RLE compressed data (without overhead) in one table for about 15 TB (compression ratio for Medical Images for RLE is around 2.0 - 2.7 - so overall size will be above 30 TB for one table - and facts stated on firebirdfaq will be then met. I am not thinking of blobs in above assumptions).
I am thinking of modifying source code of Firebird 2.5 to have it work with 32kB db page size, but i am worried if it will be simple operation and does such db files will be correctly recognized by in example SQL Manager For Interbase And Firebird ?
Lots of questions and little of answers.
Best regards
Lukasz Matuszewski
PS the estimation of max. records per table was based on assumption that each compressed record is on about 1kB size.
Does anybody knows if database page size in Firebird 3.0 will be expanded to 32768 bytes ? This will allow to store greater number of records per table.
For about average record size little greater then 1kB it would be above 14.5 G records (while for 16384 it is 3,5 G records). This would give us upper limit for RLE compressed data (without overhead) in one table for about 15 TB (compression ratio for Medical Images for RLE is around 2.0 - 2.7 - so overall size will be above 30 TB for one table - and facts stated on firebirdfaq will be then met. I am not thinking of blobs in above assumptions).
I am thinking of modifying source code of Firebird 2.5 to have it work with 32kB db page size, but i am worried if it will be simple operation and does such db files will be correctly recognized by in example SQL Manager For Interbase And Firebird ?
Lots of questions and little of answers.
Best regards
Lukasz Matuszewski
PS the estimation of max. records per table was based on assumption that each compressed record is on about 1kB size.