| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2008-12-10 00:06:22 | Re: IN question |
| Previous Message | Meredith L. Patterson | 2008-12-09 22:43:21 | Re: IN question |