Re: Whatcha' wanta have?????

Back in February Madison asked for input as to what we want to see in the IDS 9.6 release. Although this is almost certainly too late for IDS 9.6 consideration, I don't know of a better forum to request modifications. I've recently stumbled on something which I'd like to see changed. Specifically, I think the following limitations need to be dramatically increased. Table-Level Parameters (based on 2K page size) Maximum Capacity per Table Data rows per fragment 4,277,659,295 Data pages per fragment 16,775,134 Data bytes per fragment (excludes Smart Large Objects (BLOB, CLOB) and Simple Large Objects (BYTE, TEXT) created in Blobspaces) 33,818,671,136 Release notes on the IBM-Informix website show that these numbers have remained unchanged from OnLine 5.02 up through and including IDS 9.40. I can only think that these parameters were an oversight with IDS 9.4. After all, how practical can a 4TB chunk ever be if it can only hold 32GB of any single table? Thanks, Dave Griffen

"Dave Griffen" <dgriffen@nospam.finishline.com> wrote in message news:cc4irj$t9s$1@news.onecall.net... > Back in February Madison asked for input as to what we want to see in the > IDS 9.6 release. Although this is almost certainly too late for IDS 9.6 > consideration, I don't know of a better forum to request modifications. > I've recently stumbled on something which I'd like to see changed. > Specifically, I think the following limitations need to be dramatically > increased. > > Table-Level Parameters (based on 2K page size) Maximum Capacity per > Table > Data rows per fragment 4,277,659,295 > Data pages per fragment 16,775,134 > Data bytes per fragment (excludes Smart Large Objects (BLOB, CLOB) and > Simple Large Objects (BYTE, TEXT) created in Blobspaces) 33,818,671,136 > > Release notes on the IBM-Informix website show that these numbers have > remained unchanged from OnLine 5.02 up through and including IDS 9.40. > > I can only think that these parameters were an oversight with IDS 9.4. > After all, how practical can a 4TB chunk ever be if it can only hold 32GB of > any single table? I'm absolutely with you on this, Dave. Although I haven't *recently* discovered this - it bit me in the arse a few years ago - I still have to spend time on larger bases using fragmentation for a purpose it simply was not intended - splitting tables across dbspaces to get around the 32G tablespace limit. With all the raised limits of 9.40, I was astonished to find this hadn;t been addressed.