I can't answer whether the 64-bit option is sound at 9.6 on HPUX. I've heard things about there being 'issues' about that combination, but I'm not sure.
Depending on the growth of your file, a dynamic solution may be fine. With the even distribution of item sizes, a dynamic file will give you ostensibly ~4GB of space divided between the DATA.30 and OVER.30 parts. Tuning a dynamic file usually isn't necessary for consistently named and standardized keys. If the growth is very high, which a history file may experience, then it would be wiser to use a distributed file. This gives you the benefit of smaller part files to maintain, which is good for IT/IS personnel's weekends. Just my two bits. Karl On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 12:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > UV 9.6 / HPUX 11 > > I have a hashed file approaching the 2 gig limit. I need some help determining > whether to go with the dynamic or 64 bit option. > > Here are some specifics. > > The file is our inventory history file which is, as you can imagine, used heavily. > Approximately 85 percent of the records are 4k in size. > > I have always frowned upon using dynamic files because they seem to be slower > compared to hashed. Maybe because I have never attempted to figure out how to tune > them. > > Can anyone give me the pros/cons of using the 64 bit versus dynamic option? > > Thanks in advance, > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- Karl L. Pearson Director of IT, ATS Industrial Supply Direct: 801-978-4429 Toll-free: 888-972-3182 x29 Fax: 801-972-3888 http://www.atsindustrial.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
