Printable View
Yeah right.. I am planning to turning the computer off and opening a bottle of Jameson.Quote:
Originally posted by DaPi
Which gives a limit of the order of 10**100 (that's a Google isn't it?). Julian, nice to see you are planning ahead for some REALLY BIG databases :)
Good Point, Julian.Quote:
Originally posted by julian
The limitation comes from the maximum columns in one table: 1000; and maximum number of columns in a concatinated index: 32.
Small stuff! That's only 10**26 molecules :)Quote:
Originally posted by julian
opening a bottle of Jameson.
There is a limit depending on the tables volume and hardward available. I had a table with 5 indexes being inserted at a rate of 700 records per second and the hardard couldn't keep up (With 4 indexes it could). But the same table with 10 inserts per second would be fine.
Also remember,
Maximum number of columns allowed in a bitmap index is 30.
After relection, I now realise that a tighter limit is that of producing unique 30 character names using alphanum (plus _ $ and #) - there are only 10**45 of these ! :)Quote:
Originally posted by julian
The limitation comes from the maximum columns in one table: 1000; and maximum number of columns in a concatinated index: 32.
You could use mixed-case naming of course. Never neglect the beneficial use of bad design practices!
slimdave, I did think of mixed case after posting - thought that was in the domain of "b*gg*r*ng flies" - OK, with mixed case you get to around 10**54
(BTW if you're into trivia - Archimedes' "Sand Reckoner" is the earliest known discussion of naming big numbers. He estimated the number of grains of sand that would fit in a sphere the size of his "universe" - something like the size of the solar system. The biggest number in his first "period" was 10**80000 and he didn't stop there!)
grjohnson, what is this "hardware" you speak of that so limits human imagination?