On Thursday 16 March 2006 14:07, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 08:13 -0500, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
> > On 3/15/06, Joost van der Sluis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A varchar can hold 2000 characters in sqldb. Postgres supports up to
> > > 8192 characters in a varchar. If you really need 8192 characters, it's
> > > easy to update sqldb, just set this value on top of db.pp.
> >
> > I though that there were absolutely no limits in length with a varchar
> > that has no limit specifier.
> >
> > The varchar type is the ideal field for a memo. It take only the
> > required length and the overhead is not big. There are also no known
> > speed issues on the DB side when working with this type - I asked
> > postgres people for that since in many DB there is a speed issue when
> > using that kind of fields.
>
> You are right, I confused PostgreSQL with another DBMS.
>
> But the limit for a string in sqldb is really there.
>
> I've changed PQConnection so that a text field is also interpreted as a
> varchar. But I don't agree that you can use this or a varchar like a
> BLOB-field. It's true that they are unlimited, (up to 1 GB) but the
> problem is that they are handled like a normal field. Thus if you do a
> request for a record, the field is send in that request.
>
> Normally, a BLOB-field is not send with the record, but only if you
> specially ask for the data in the blob.
>
> SQLDB always buffers all the records. Thus if you have a unlimited
> varchar, sqldb will allocate approximate 2000 (the max) bytes for this
> field for every record. Keep that in mind while you're designing your
> database.
So I can not use a varchar c(8000). If the limit is 2000 bytes then I can
only have 1000 chars. Is that correct?
John
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
