> So at the end of all that, I'm comfortable to go to 1024. so we have the
> same limit as with 3byte utf8 in mysql. This should be enough for
> people. Going above this will require further testing and changes.
>
> --
> innodb max index column length is 191, not 256 or 768 as one would "expect"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578842
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Drizzle-
> developers, which is subscribed to Drizzle.
>
> Status in A Lightweight SQL Database for Cloud and Web: In Progress
> Status in Drizzle dexter series: In Progress
>
> Bug description:
> DICT_MAX_INDEX_COL_LEN
>
> was 768
>
> could be 1024
>
> or could be 768*4.
>
>
> <stewart> lbieber, 256*4 would be consistent with mysql in utf8 mode.
> <stewart> lbieber, and 768*4(3072) would be consistent with mysql in latin1
>
>
Got a patch? :)
On May 12, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Stewart Smith wrote:
> So at the end of all that, I'm comfortable to go to 1024. so we have the /bugs.launchpad .net/bugs/ 578842 INDEX_COL_ LEN
> same limit as with 3byte utf8 in mysql. This should be enough for
> people. Going above this will require further testing and changes.
>
> --
> innodb max index column length is 191, not 256 or 768 as one would "expect"
> https:/
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Drizzle-
> developers, which is subscribed to Drizzle.
>
> Status in A Lightweight SQL Database for Cloud and Web: In Progress
> Status in Drizzle dexter series: In Progress
>
> Bug description:
> DICT_MAX_
>
> was 768
>
> could be 1024
>
> or could be 768*4.
>
>
> <stewart> lbieber, 256*4 would be consistent with mysql in utf8 mode.
> <stewart> lbieber, and 768*4(3072) would be consistent with mysql in latin1
>
>