|
Included in the 32K max record length? Yes (SQL0604 - ALLOCATE rule)
Allocate and then look? Kind of. Some buffers can be reused so you may
get a 2GB buffer allocated but when used in conjunction with X BLOBs at
runtime none of the BLOBs exceed Y MB in reality. It's the reuse feature
that generally is 'goodness' but in this case wasteful due to you
specifying a size way beyond what is really needed. The reuse is good as
it avoids repititive buffer allocations.
Was 16MB just a number I picked or something more meaningful? It is
something more meaningful :-) Stay at or below 16MB if possible.
Can ALTER change the BLOB characteristics? Yes, you can change BLOB size
and ALLOCATE (or at least it just worked for me on a V5R3 system with a
quick test)
Bruce Vining
"Walden H.
Leverich"
<WaldenL@techsoft To
inc.com> "Midrange Systems Technical
Sent by: Discussion"
midrange-l-bounce <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
s@xxxxxxxxxxxx cc
Subject
01/05/2006 03:02 RE: Specifying Maximum Length of
PM BLOB
Please respond to
Midrange Systems
Technical
Discussion
>If you use ALLOCATE then the BLOB (when less than or equal to ALLOCATE
>size) will be stored in the same base record, and one I0 operation will
get both.
Great to know. I assume that that also means that the blob field will
take that amount of space in the record even if it's smaller than the
allocate size, right? And I assume that space is included in the max 32K
record size, right?
>Allocating a 2GB buffer can be more resource intensive than allocating
a 100K buffer...
Yup. But are you saying you allocate the space and then look at the
actual size?
>I would suggest trying to define the BLOB column as up to 16MB rather
than 2GB
>when you really don't need it any larger.
16M is a "magic" number on the iSeries. Was that just a number you
picked, or do you do one thing when the max size is < an extent and
another when it's > 16M?
I guess my issue is, if I don't know the max size, why limit myself.
It's not _likely_ that my blobs would be > a couple meg, but in my case
I'm storing RTF documents, and if the user inserts a couple of images in
a word doc and then converts to RTF it can get big fast!
Also, Can I modify the max size with an alter table, and if so, how ugly
is that? If I put a max of 15M but discover I need to go to 30M after I
have a million rows, have I created a nightmere for myself?
The other obvious solution is to store the RTF file in the IFS and store
a link (datalink, or just a varchar w/the path) in the database.
Thanks,
-Walden
------------
Walden H Leverich III
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x3051
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.