[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5235?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13035962#comment-13035962
]
Dave Brosius commented on DERBY-5235:
-------------------------------------
The following query is theoretically fine in derby. Please take a look at it
(it's so long that i've linked to it, rather than add it inline.)
http://pastebin.com/jjcqx56K
And the suggestion is that this is too limiting. Really? I just don't get it.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean a database should be promoting suspect
practices. What application should use an access pattern that requires indexing
of fields of 33,000 characters.
> Remove the artificial limit on the length of VARCHAR values, allowing them to
> be java.lang.Integer.MAX_VALUE long
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-5235
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5235
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.9.0.0
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>
> The original Cloudscape limit for the length of VARCHAR values was
> java.lang.Integer.MAX_VALUE. That is the limit in Cloudscape 5.1. Nothing in
> Derby should break if we restore the original limit. The current limit is an
> artificial bound introduced to make Derby agree with DB2. 32672 is the upper
> bound on the length of a DB2 VARCHAR:
> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0001029.htm
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
