thanks Peter for the use-case writeup. Not having to overrun the max
length seems to make the choice for text for most folks.
I had a look at the indexing capabilities of a some db's on text. I
couldnt find Postgres documenting limits but according to this its
2713 -
http://joseph.randomnetworks.c
On Dec 22, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Mario Briggs wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Not currently, no. And if I were to put in some work on improving on
>> the Oracle backend's support for filtering on TextFields, I would
>> concentrate first on fixing the query so that it correctly compares
>>
Hi Ian,
Ian Kelly wrote:
> Not currently, no. And if I were to put in some work on improving on
> the Oracle backend's support for filtering on TextFields, I would
> concentrate first on fixing the query so that it correctly compares
> the entire TextField and not just the first 4000 characters.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 02:42 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Not currently, no. And if I were to put in some work on improving on
>> the Oracle backend's support for filtering on TextFields, I would
>> concentrate first on fixing the query so that
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 02:42 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Mario Briggs
> wrote:
> >> This is known. The Oracle notes [1] mention that TextFields cannot be
> >> indexed. Since Oracle requires indexes for unique columns, this also
> >> means they cannot be unique, al
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Mario Briggs wrote:
>> This is known. The Oracle notes [1] mention that TextFields cannot be
>> indexed. Since Oracle requires indexes for unique columns, this also
>> means they cannot be unique, although we should probably make that
>> explicit. It may also b
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 22:25 -0800, Mario Briggs wrote:
> > This is known. The Oracle notes [1] mention that TextFields cannot be
> > indexed. Since Oracle requires indexes for unique columns, this also
> > means they cannot be unique, although we should probably make that
> > explicit. It may al
> This is known. The Oracle notes [1] mention that TextFields cannot be
> indexed. Since Oracle requires indexes for unique columns, this also
> means they cannot be unique, although we should probably make that
> explicit. It may also be worthwhile to check for this when the models
> are valida
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Peter Herndon wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've run into a situation where syncdb produces an error on one of my models
>> against Oracle, but not against Postgres. Using Postgres, one can mark a
>> TextField as uni
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Peter Herndon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've run into a situation where syncdb produces an error on one of my models
> against Oracle, but not against Postgres. Using Postgres, one can mark a
> TextField as unique=True, and syncdb works just fine. Using Oracle, you
Hi all,
I've run into a situation where syncdb produces an error on one of my models
against Oracle, but not against Postgres. Using Postgres, one can mark a
TextField as unique=True, and syncdb works just fine. Using Oracle, you get an
error:
> cx_Oracle.DatabaseError: ORA-02329: column of
11 matches
Mail list logo
