Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27985 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27985 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: jvandyk Reported by: jvandyk Updated by: chx -Status: patch (code needs review) +Status: patch (ready to be committed) I read the code and looks fine with me. jvandyk says the pgsql way is necessary unless we want to support only 8.0 chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:14:43 +0000 : jvandyk Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/type32chars.diff (2.48 KB) The type column of the node table is VARCHAR(16). CCK prepends 'content-' onto its content types, leaving only 8 chars for a descriptive "short name" of the content type. For example, "content-shoe-size" already exceeds the limit. This patch changes the column width to 32 characters.

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27985 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27985 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: jvandyk Reported by: jvandyk Updated by: killes@www.drop.org Status: patch (ready to be committed) Ber: I'd really like to have some proof or even evidence for this claim... I don't think it is a problem. killes@www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:14:43 +0000 : jvandyk Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/type32chars.diff (2.48 KB) The type column of the node table is VARCHAR(16). CCK prepends 'content-' onto its content types, leaving only 8 chars for a descriptive "short name" of the content type. For example, "content-shoe-size" already exceeds the limit. This patch changes the column width to 32 characters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:31:08 +0000 : chx I read the code and looks fine with me. jvandyk says the pgsql way is necessary unless we want to support only 8.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:26:04 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I am no SQL guru, but AFAIK this will greatly affect the memory usage of mysql. At least that is why i refraind from this solution and renamed node_aggregator to naggregator when that module bumbed into this 8 char limit.

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27985 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27985 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: jvandyk Reported by: jvandyk Updated by: Steven Status: patch (ready to be committed) True, but we use varchar() fields, not char() fields. Their length is their contents + 1 byte for size. In the node table, I think the actual body contents pretty much make the other columns irrelevant as far as actual used size goes. Steven Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:14:43 +0000 : jvandyk Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/type32chars.diff (2.48 KB) The type column of the node table is VARCHAR(16). CCK prepends 'content-' onto its content types, leaving only 8 chars for a descriptive "short name" of the content type. For example, "content-shoe-size" already exceeds the limit. This patch changes the column width to 32 characters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:31:08 +0000 : chx I read the code and looks fine with me. jvandyk says the pgsql way is necessary unless we want to support only 8.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:26:04 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I am no SQL guru, but AFAIK this will greatly affect the memory usage of mysql. At least that is why i refraind from this solution and renamed node_aggregator to naggregator when that module bumbed into this 8 char limit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:40:50 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Ber: I'd really like to have some proof or even evidence for this claim... I don't think it is a problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:32:04 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I meant it as a question, because I am simply not sure. http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/data-size.html states that it really affects your speed and size when you use bigger fields. But I am simply not sure if this is completely true in this case. As sated: I am no sql guru. But i would like one to comment on this issue!