Re: Whatcha' wanta have?????

"Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:40F1EF5A.4020507@earthlink.net... > Dave Griffen wrote: > > Upon further review of your comments...It sounds like your looking for ways > > to make the 4TB chunk be more useable but not to increase fragment size. > > That brings to mind another question, how many fragments can a single table > > have? From sifting through the manuals the answer seems to be 255 and your > > comments lead me to think you don't have plans on changing that limit. > > Can you cite the reference(s) from which you deduce the 255 fragment > limit. I don't think it is real, but I could be wrong. My apologies, I misread the passage. > > > So > > if your not planning on increasing data pages per fragment or fragments per > > table, we would still be left with the same Table Size Limit of 4TB? > > That is not the intention. > > > I understand the bit limit. For me, finding the 8-bit fragment id reference > > seems to give a good explanation of why the fragments can only hold 24-bits > > worth of pages. I also understand why these things didn't change in IDS > > 9.4. And in addition to the reasons you mentioned it would seem likely that > > support for 32-bit OS's would also be a factor. However, in looking forward > > to future IDS versions, I would still like to see these numbers increased. > > Even if that means a DBMS that only runs on 64-bit platforms and has a one > > way migration path (in-place migration would still be really handy). In any > > case, thanks for listening. > > 32-bit o/s aren't a factor as long as they support large files, which > for all practical purposes, they do. (More precisely, we don't really > support those very few systems, which are verging on archaic, that do > not support large files.) > > > > -- > Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> > Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com > Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/