not yet, will do later. Daniel
On 4 October 2010 15:42, Hector Virgen <djvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree; iterating over a "limit 0" result set should result in no more > than 0 iterations. Have you filed a bug report? > > -- > Hector Virgen > Sent from my Droid X > On Oct 4, 2010 2:17 AM, "Daniel Latter" <dan.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > what i meant was if you do happen to pass a zero to the limit method, > then > > say loop over the (possibly millions of rows it will return) returned > rows, > > couldn't this potentially bring down a server? > > > > Daniel. > > > > 2010/10/3 Valeriy Yatsko <d...@design.ru> > > > >> Good day > >> > >> > Yes, but it doesnt seem right to assume someones app will have the > same > >> > amount or rows that is equesl to the max integer the os can hold? > >> > >> You really have table larger than 2 000 000 000 entries on 32-bit > servers? > >> :) > >> > >> Let's see... int = 4 bytes on 32 bit systems: > >> 2 000 000 000 x 4 = 8 000 000 000 = ~ 8 gb minimum per table :) > >> > >> Let's add here at least varchar(255): > >> 2 000 000 000 x (4 + 255) = 518 000 000 000 = ~ 518 gb per table :) > >> > >> Try to search some data through this table. :) > >> > >> There are some architecture solutions for this, like splitting tables > into > >> smaller (or shards). > >> > >> -- > >> Валерий Яцко > >> ______________________________________________________________________ > >> d...@design.ru | http://www.artlebedev.ru > >> >
