wobble...@yahoo.co.uk,
> is there a good and up to date official source of documentation on
> firebird.conf
The firebird.conf file itself, version current for the Fb version you
are using. You won't get more up to date than that anywhere.
For Fb3, which allows per-database config for a lot of
30.07.2018 12:01, wobble...@yahoo.co.uk [firebird-support] wrote:
> is there a good and up to date official source of documentation on
> firebird.conf and other
> admin?
Description of firebird.conf is inside of it.
--
WBR, SD.
is there a good and up to date official source of documentation on
firebird.conf and other admin? I can't find anything in the
https://www.firebirdsql.org/en/reference-manuals/
https://www.firebirdsql.org/en/reference-manuals/ that is as good as the older
release notes, nor the janus software
Ian wrote:
> We got the idea from The Firebird Book, and after that I can't find
> mention of it being deprecated in 2.0 release notes or later.
Not deprecated but abolished. If something is "deprecated", it is
still valid but likely to be dropped in a subsequent release. From Fb
2 onward, Fb
> 27.07.2018 21:41, Helen Borrie hele...@iinet.net.au [firebird-support] wrote:
>> I don't know where you got the idea that you could specify the size of
>> a temp directory.
Dmitry replied
>It is an Interbase feature.
Uh...ok... @_@
If you want to allocate specific spaces for your temp
27.07.2018 21:41, Helen Borrie hele...@iinet.net.au [firebird-support] wrote:
> I don't know where you got the idea that you could specify the size of
> a temp directory.
It is an Interbase feature.
--
WBR, SD.
wobble...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I've just tried
> TempDirectories = /location1 5000 ;/location2 ; /location3
> And location1 is ignored, but 2 and 3 used!
Which tells you something. ;-)
The engine doesn't recognise the format of the first member of the
list but it's OK with the second
I've just tried
TempDirectories = /location1 5000 ;/location2 ; /location3
And location1 is ignored, but 2 and 3 used!
On 8-6-2012 18:07, Ann Harrison wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Alec Swan alecs...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Vlad, but this is too complicated to give as a guidance to our
customers. However, it sounds like rebuilding an index cannot require more
space that the database size itself,
On 10-6-2012 12:32, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
10.06.2012 14:09, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
* for each record (sequential read of all pages?)
* insert column value into index
Inserting unsorted / random values into the b-tree is known to be much
slower than sorting the values in advance and loading
Thanks Vlad, but this is too complicated to give as a guidance to our
customers. However, it sounds like rebuilding an index cannot require more
space that the database size itself, right?
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:22 AM, hvlad hv...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
**
--- In
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Alec Swan alecs...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Vlad, but this is too complicated to give as a guidance to our
customers. However, it sounds like rebuilding an index cannot require more
space that the database size itself, right?
On a bad day, yes it could. To
Alex,
However, it sounds like rebuilding an index cannot require more
space that the database size itself, right?
Correct, in order to build the index, the engine must build and sort a
projection of the index values.
So, if you build an index on a string [say varchar(100)] column which is
13 matches
Mail list logo
