To keep collection names still "readable", you might consider disemvoweling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling>. Removing the vowels can save you some space and still make the names human friendly.
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 8:46:44 AM UTC+1, Massimo Bono wrote: > > Hi thanks for the quick reply. > > Yes, I completely understand that doing such change may have catastrophic > side effect. What I was wishing was to create a feature proposal for the > next release, so I have to really thank you. > Viewing your PR, I've just noticed that you plan to increase the maximum > character size to 128: this can work, by another person may ending up > requiring more characters. What about having a variable deciding the > maximum collection name? I doesn't need to be set runtime, maybe just a > compile time macro may be sufficient. What do you think? > > Regarding the hash: yes, I've already thought that but in my scenario I'm > really interested in leaving the collection names human readable. Sadly I > think I will have to bite the bullet up until 3.6 and generate hashes. Sad > to hear that. > > > On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:51:38 PM UTC+2, Jan wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> the maximum length for collection names is currently restricted to 64 >> characters as you already found out. >> >> ArangoDB should be able to handle longer collection names however. I >> created a PR with such change for a test and it seems it doesn't require >> too many changes to pass: https://github.com/arangodb/arangodb/pull/9890 >> However, there may be client drivers which also enforce the name length >> limit. For example, if a collection with a name of 65 chars is created in >> the web UI and then a driver reads it back but has the "old" restriction, >> things could fall apart. >> >> So it is a bit delicate to change this in the middle of a released >> version. >> It should be doable to perform the change for the release following 3.5, >> which is right now in development and will be released eventually as 3.6, >> with a yet-unknown ETA. >> >> Not sure if this helps in your particular case, but making such changes >> in the middle of a release may have too many unintended side-effects. >> Until then, I think a solution that creates a deterministic hash from a >> long name to produce a collection name of "acceptable" length (i.e. <= 64 >> chars) should be working. >> >> Best regards >> Jan >> >> >> >> >> Am Sonntag, 1. September 2019 11:04:42 UTC+2 schrieb Massimo Bono: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just a question: It would be possible (as a feature request) to increase >>> the maximum length of a collection name? As for now, the documentation >>> clearly states: >>> >>> The maximum allowed length of a collection name is 64 bytes >>>> >>> >>> At the moment I have several collections which I dynamically create. >>> Their names can be lengthy and I keep encoutering error 1208 (collection >>> name illegal name). As a workaround, I'm compressing the collection name to >>> reduce its size, but it would be nicer to increase the collection name >>> length. >>> >>> I know someone else wanted to increase the character available in the >>> collection name (here <https://github.com/arangodb/arangodb/issues/243>) >>> but that is another (closed) issue. >>> >>> Does it make sense? >>> >>> Thank you for any kind reply >>> >>> PS: sorry if I didn't comply with any question guidelines, this is my >>> first time posting here :D >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArangoDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/arangodb/4d91ab92-aad7-4ae0-b64c-523e8f6bde6d%40googlegroups.com.
