|
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.