On Monday 03 March 2003 16:03, Sigurd Urdahl wrote: > In one of our customers databases there is table that have an > extremely high max_data_length of about 256TB(!). Another have 1 TB, > while the rest is at 4GB. (all of these tables are basically the same, > but with these two as the ones withthe most data). The largest table > is currently at about 8.7 GB. > > Is there any practical consequences of having such overly large > max_table_length?
Nothing really. > Or is max_data_length mostly useful as a way to > ensure that disk don't run full or as a quota system? No, because you'll have to provide 256TB of free disk space for a 8.7gb table - I don't think that's reasonable. > And if there is, what is the more practical way reduce the value to > something remotely sane. There is no need to. -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/ __ ___ ___ ____ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Egor Egorov / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.net <___/ www.mysql.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
