D. Johnson wrote:
> I have recently been working on several projects that use MSAccess as a
> front end to both a Postgres and Oracle DB. Unfortunately, I have
> noticed some differences and limitations in Oracle that seem to make
> Postgres look like a better choice for the application. My problem is
> with the block sizing differences in PG and Oracle. It seems that when
> mapping memo types from Access to Postgres you could create a text type
> in Postgres that emulates the Access memo type, and you could define a
> table with any number of these types of fields. In Oracle you can only
> have one memo field mapped to a table with a max size equal I believe to
> the block size, and if you use the max block size then you cannot define
> any other fields in the same table.
>
> I am curious how Postgres handles text types, is a var char or does it
> allocate the full 8K for the text type. In Oracle, the size of the table
> definition has to be within the block boundary, is the same restriction
> true in Postgres.
The size limitations (8K by default, 32K max) are gone with 7.1. Well, you shouldn't really use 100+ MB
sized rows, because the resulting INSERT already needs to travel from the frontend, through the parser down into
theexecutor. And on SELECT the client needs to buffer all the data at once in memory. But if you really need
to do it, swap space is cheap...
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com