We have fixed a bunch of stuff around LOB'S since then. I suggest you
update to the latest version but run with mvstore disabled
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 at 02:31, Adam McMahon a...@cs.miami.edu wrote:
Hi,
I am using H2 to store text as clobs.
The operations go like this:
The clobs are read into
Allocate more memory to the jvm: your data is stored in the same heap space
used by sql operations.
Go for 1.5Gb if you're in 32 bits jvm or above 2Gb if in 64 bits jvm.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups H2
Database group.
To unsubscribe from this
I guess another route would be to change the datatype to varchar. Is this
possible? Is it safe?
-Adam
On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 12:46:55 PM UTC-4, Adam McMahon wrote:
Noel,
Thanks for the suggestion. When you say latest version, do you mean
latest stable version, or the latest
Currently this is not supported directly, though you can use TABLE function
( http://www.h2database.com/html/functions.html#table ) to workaround this
issue and write queries like this
select t.* from my_table t, table(id int = ?) z where t.id = z.id
and pass the array as parameter.
But this
Noel,
Thanks for the suggestion. When you say latest version, do you mean latest
stable version, or the latest build?
Would the upgrade process be to simple replace the jar and restart the DB?
Or is it best to restore a fresh DB from sql script?
-Adam
On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 2:54:40
Is there a way to parameterize the values in WHERE ... IN? Like IN (?).
I'm trying this, passing in an array of String, [Ljava.lang.String, but it
returns zero rows. Also tried passing [Ljava.lang.Object, with the same
result.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Looks like this issue was fixed by this commit
https://github.com/h2database/h2database/commit/7352ba5db945682d785b7a2da62160c712dbcd37.
Thanks!
Aside, I think confirmed bugs like these should be tracked as an issue on
Github.
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 11:42:07 UTC+5:30, Thomas Mueller
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Sergi Vladykin
sergi.vlady...@gmail.com wrote:
But this question raises up often and I believe we can fix this relatively
easy by allowing `IN ?` expression where parameter is expected to be an
array. Thoughts?
That messes with optimising prepared statements
I also found this works:
where in (select * from table(foo int = (?)))
I recall that there are performance differences between 'in' clauses and
joins against table literals, though in practice I'm unable to predict
which will be best w/o testing with real data: it can go either way.
On
Updating to 1.4 is a drop in and go replacement as long as you turn off
mvstore in the url
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 at 19:09, Adam McMahon a...@cs.miami.edu wrote:
I guess another route would be to change the datatype to varchar. Is this
possible? Is it safe?
-Adam
On Sunday, June 14, 2015
10 matches
Mail list logo