I just checked the trunk, it the same reflection code is in place, as far as the column length is concerned.
To me the question is, should sqlalchemy be aware of Char vs Byte storage? Is VARCHAR2(400) the same as VARCHAR2(100 CHAR), by storage size it is, but do we want storage size or number of characters? I'm not 100% sure. Anyone else out there using oracle, and have an opinion. On Aug 26, 5:37 pm, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 26, 2009, at 6:56 PM, chris e wrote: > > > > > I noticed that with reflection, my column lengths seems to be > > incorrect for varchar2, and char columns that are using char storage > > instead of byte storage. > > > I.E. a VARCHAR2(400 CHAR) colum, is reported to have a length of 1600 > > by sqlalchemy, as our database uses utf-32 for storage, however, there > > is only room for 400 characters. > > > Should sqlalchemy be using the CHAR_LENGTH field instead of > > DATA_LENGTH when reflecting character columns? CHAR_LENGTH returns 400 > > in the example above instead of 1600 > > its possible. whichever value gets fed back into CHAR, VARCHAR2, > NVARCHAR2 to create the same result would be most appropriate. make > sure you test out with the 0.6 trunk since the oracle dialect is > dramatically different now. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
