Re: The need to 'get around' the 4000 character limit in varchar2

From: Thomas Kellerer <TAAXADSCBIXW_at_spammotel.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:14:19 +0100
Message-ID: <4rovhvFsj53dU1@mid.individual.net>

hpuxrac wrote on 12.11.2006 16:48:

>> Switching back to the limit of 4000 does not even seem to be a solution to me,
>> as the requirement is obviously to store more characters than that. But if the
>> reality shows, that no more than 4000 are indeed used (even in SQL Server) then,
>> yes I agree with you

>
> Thomas I originally noted that "if the OP cannot use BLOB or CLOB" THEN
> ... blah blah blah.
>
> Sorry if this confused you but perhaps I should have stated it more
> explicitly. Obviously using a BLOB/CLOB appears to be the best or at
> least most clean solution.
>

[...]
>
> Potentially putting on a bandaid with multiple varchar2 columns would
> be ugly and a scalability concern but perhaps using this approach with
> a view and a public synonym might be be more transparent, not that this
> is necessarily a good thing.

"cannot use BLOB" is relative. Usually this means "cannot without a development effort that won't be paid" which is understandable

I have implemented solutions with multiple varchar columns myself (that was back with Oracle 7.x on Novell and we had to support rdb and Ingres as well), and I don't believe that the development effort for implementing that is less than switching to CLOB columns. While you might get away with a view and a public synonym if the application only reads the columns, I don't think that it will be that easy when it comes to updating the columns. But I haven't looked into updateable views in Oracle for a long time, so I could be wrong here

Thomas Received on Sun Nov 12 2006 - 10:14:19 CST