Re: Why are data types size limited?

spamfilter_at_rosinowski.de (Jan-Erik Rosinowski) wrote:

>"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
>
>>I can imagine a scheme which allows memos to be indexed. Only a
>
>sure, but when does it really make sense to index a blob? ...ordering
>blobs because of differences in the 123456th char?

     It might. The case I'm thinking of is where a BLOB datatype is being used because the character type just don't hold enough. I don't think *I* would ever need this, but it's certainly possible.

>>"reasonable" number of bytes are actually indexed, and another
>
>that's what sqlaw does, for example

     "reasonable"? Which value? Mine? Yours? His? See my sig.

>>"reasonable" number of bytes are actually stored in the record,
>>with the rest stored wherever BLOB data is stored currently. If
>
>sounds like paradox's memo-implementation, doesn't it?

      There's *that* word again.

>>the text data is kept within "reasonable" bounds, performance
>>is near what is currently acceptable for varchar data. However,
>>if someone actually has an email address longer than 255 or so
>>characters, it won't cause havoc in an app.
>
>agreed, to be honest i don't understand why oracle for example makes
>an explicit difference between c(-haracter-)lobs and varchar2.
>probably historical reasons

      And yet again! Well, at least he didn't say "logical".

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.