I agree; iterating over a "limit 0" result set should result in no more than 0 iterations. Have you filed a bug report?
-- Hector Virgen Sent from my Droid X On Oct 4, 2010 2:17 AM, "Daniel Latter" <[email protected]> wrote: > what i meant was if you do happen to pass a zero to the limit method, then > say loop over the (possibly millions of rows it will return) returned rows, > couldn't this potentially bring down a server? > > Daniel. > > 2010/10/3 Valeriy Yatsko <[email protected]> > >> Good day >> >> > Yes, but it doesnt seem right to assume someones app will have the same >> > amount or rows that is equesl to the max integer the os can hold? >> >> You really have table larger than 2 000 000 000 entries on 32-bit servers? >> :) >> >> Let's see... int = 4 bytes on 32 bit systems: >> 2 000 000 000 x 4 = 8 000 000 000 = ~ 8 gb minimum per table :) >> >> Let's add here at least varchar(255): >> 2 000 000 000 x (4 + 255) = 518 000 000 000 = ~ 518 gb per table :) >> >> Try to search some data through this table. :) >> >> There are some architecture solutions for this, like splitting tables into >> smaller (or shards). >> >> -- >> Валерий Яцко >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> [email protected] | http://www.artlebedev.ru >>
