[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: DB and Node sanity.

From: <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-05-12 09:17:37 CEST

"Glenn A. Thompson" <gthompson@cdr.net> writes:

> Folks:
> Will whatever Node sanity you arrive at be three separate thingy's?
> Or all one blob sort of thing? I'm hoping for three separate
> thing-a-ma-bobs or (do-hickys:-). When you guys mention space
> conservation in your discussions, I get a little squeamish. SQL DBs
> piss disk away like beer at a football game. Am I going to get beat
> about the head and shoulder for their wastefulness? I was planing
> on keeping this ID as a number in the SQL Tables. But I don't want
> to argue about it. I will do strings if you guys want me to. One
> thing I do prefer is that I keep any (ID/or potentially indexed sort
> of thing) a fixed length if possible. Some DBs have the ability to
> widen a column on the fly if needed or you can always export then
> import to the wider columns.

Regardless of what is chosen, we will not allow a schema in which the
keys can grow without bound (heh...though in this case, we sure wish
we could easily let them grow forever :-). If we choose a 64-bit
integer, you can simply make sure to set your table width to however
many characters needed to hold the largest collection of those things.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 12 09:18:25 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.