Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: IN question

From: "Mat Caughron" <caughron(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Meredith L(dot) Patterson" <mlp(at)thesmartpolitenerd(dot)com>
Cc: "Eric Walstad" <eric(at)ericwalstad(dot)com>, sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: IN question
Date: 2008-12-09 23:48:16
Message-ID: d5aeb68a0812091548j1ec30cf4o153d0b1e5015d9fb@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: sfpug
So anyone know what circumstances caused the implementation of a 64 kilobyte
query size limit that was in Oracle 9i?

I suspect there's an opportunity here to benefit from prior lessons learned
the hard way (e.g. size limit too small or too big).


Mat Caughron


On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Meredith L. Patterson <
mlp(at)thesmartpolitenerd(dot)com> wrote:

> Eric Walstad wrote:
> > The results I found suggest the limit is based on available memory but
> > I didn't find anything definitive.
>
> That's probably the case, as there's no fixed upper bound on query length.
>
> --mlp
>

In response to

Responses

sfpug by date

Next:From: Steve AtkinsDate: 2008-12-10 00:06:22
Subject: Re: IN question
Previous:From: Meredith L. PattersonDate: 2008-12-09 22:43:21
Subject: Re: IN question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group