Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)

13 posts in Product Futures Discussion Last posting was on 2002-11-07 00:23:42.0Z
Frank_Hamersley Posted on 2002-09-23 05:03:27.0Z
From: "Frank_Hamersley" <terabite@bigpond.com>
Subject: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:03:27 +1000
Lines: 15
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Message-ID: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: BPH-D2-p-235-253.tmns.net.au 144.134.235.253
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:300
Article PK: 93469

Has (ASE 12.5) or does Sybase plan to increase the length of the name
recorded for hash tables (currently only 12 characters it seems).

In ASE 12.0.0.4 attempting to create table #app_nam_ctrl_two after
#app_nam_ctrl_one was created earlier causes a compile time error...

Error 12822 Cannot create temporary table '#app_nam_ctrl_two'. Prefix name
'#app_nam_ctrl' is already in use by another temporary table
'#app_nam_ctrl_one'.

Cheers,

Frank Hamersley.


Mike Harrold Posted on 2002-09-23 15:12:20.0Z
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001)
From: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Originator: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Message-ID: <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:12:20 -0400
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.core.com 169.207.1.89
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:299
Article PK: 93467

In article <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com>,

Frank_Hamersley <terabite@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Has (ASE 12.5) or does Sybase plan to increase the length of the name
>recorded for hash tables (currently only 12 characters it seems).
>
>In ASE 12.0.0.4 attempting to create table #app_nam_ctrl_two after
>#app_nam_ctrl_one was created earlier causes a compile time error...
>
>Error 12822 Cannot create temporary table '#app_nam_ctrl_two'. Prefix name
>'#app_nam_ctrl' is already in use by another temporary table
>'#app_nam_ctrl_one'.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Frank Hamersley.
>
>

This limitation exists because the remaining 18 characters are used by
ASE to create a unique table name based on the user/session. To change
this would require increasing the overall total size for all object
name fields, something that would be a significant undertaking.

HTH,

/Mike


Frank_Hamersley Posted on 2002-09-24 02:05:45.0Z
From: "Frank_Hamersley" <terabite@bigpond.com>
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:05:45 +1000
Lines: 42
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Message-ID: <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: ESS-p-144-138-7-132.mega.tmns.net.au 144.138.7.132
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:298
Article PK: 93466


"Mike Harrold" wrote
> This limitation exists because the remaining 18 characters are used by
> ASE to create a unique table name based on the user/session. To change
> this would require increasing the overall total size for all object
> name fields, something that would be a significant undertaking.
>

As I suspected (having seen names with hashed numbers appended in statistics
output) this is the scope isolation mechanism for tempdb to support per user
temp tables.

Whilst I understand changing the mechanism (or expanding the name column) is
non trivial, I would still ask why 18 bytes are given over to this as it
seems like a fairly lazy hashing algorithm to consume this much space.

By my estimates 4 bytes using alpha (upper/lower) and numerics (ie 4x62
chars) provides 14.7 million entries or 5 bytes yields 916 million entries.
A bit table to track issuing of the hashes would occupy 1.8M and 109M
respectively - so 4 bytes looks very likely. That said if you were worried
about exhausting the 4 byte hash I'd expect a server accepting more that 14
million user sessions could stump up the extra 108 megs of RAM (after
starting the ASE with a trace flag to invoke the BIG table).

I expect the hash can be assigned to the session for perpetual (sic) use
fairly soon after the password has been authenticated. The table does also
not need to be made artificially sparse, because finding the hash slot in
use means just search forward for a byte that is not 0xFF and grabbing that
one. The only remaining issue is making sure that spids release the hash
slots on termination to prevent the table from silting up. If this can not
be achieved then log messages to the DBA signalling table utilization has
exceeded a configurable percentage would foreshadow a server restart at a
future time...not pretty but if ASE can't unwind a few of the worst spid
crash scenarios (eg. error 2628 in 12.0.0.4 ESD1) this should still allow
for very long uptimes.

There would then be 26 to 25 characters of significant table name for temp
tables...which I can probably just cope with at a pinch ;-)

Cheers,

Frank.


Mike Harrold Posted on 2002-09-25 16:47:33.0Z
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com> <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001)
From: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Originator: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Message-ID: <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:47:33 -0400
Lines: 83
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.core.com 169.207.1.89
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:297
Article PK: 93468

In article <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com>,

Frank_Hamersley <terabite@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>"Mike Harrold" wrote
>> This limitation exists because the remaining 18 characters are used by
>> ASE to create a unique table name based on the user/session. To change
>> this would require increasing the overall total size for all object
>> name fields, something that would be a significant undertaking.
>>
>As I suspected (having seen names with hashed numbers appended in statistics
>output) this is the scope isolation mechanism for tempdb to support per user
>temp tables.
>
>Whilst I understand changing the mechanism (or expanding the name column) is
>non trivial, I would still ask why 18 bytes are given over to this as it
>seems like a fairly lazy hashing algorithm to consume this much space.
>
>By my estimates 4 bytes using alpha (upper/lower) and numerics (ie 4x62
>chars) provides 14.7 million entries or 5 bytes yields 916 million entries.
>A bit table to track issuing of the hashes would occupy 1.8M and 109M
>respectively - so 4 bytes looks very likely. That said if you were worried
>about exhausting the 4 byte hash I'd expect a server accepting more that 14
>million user sessions could stump up the extra 108 megs of RAM (after
>starting the ASE with a trace flag to invoke the BIG table).
>
>I expect the hash can be assigned to the session for perpetual (sic) use
>fairly soon after the password has been authenticated. The table does also
>not need to be made artificially sparse, because finding the hash slot in
>use means just search forward for a byte that is not 0xFF and grabbing that
>one. The only remaining issue is making sure that spids release the hash
>slots on termination to prevent the table from silting up. If this can not
>be achieved then log messages to the DBA signalling table utilization has
>exceeded a configurable percentage would foreshadow a server restart at a
>future time...not pretty but if ASE can't unwind a few of the worst spid
>crash scenarios (eg. error 2628 in 12.0.0.4 ESD1) this should still allow
>for very long uptimes.
>
>There would then be 26 to 25 characters of significant table name for temp
>tables...which I can probably just cope with at a pinch ;-)

I believe you are making an incorrect assumption. I do not believe that
ASE uses any hashing mechanism for temp table names. The name is derived
from the spid and other session info.

Consider:

1> create table #temp12chars ( c char(1) )
2> go
1> create table #temp12chars2 ( c char(1) )
2> go
1> select name from tempdb..sysobjects where name like '#temp%'
2> go
+================================+
| name |
+================================+
| #temp12chars200000170013410924 |
+--------------------------------+
| #temp12chars_00000170013410924 |
+--------------------------------+

(2 rows affected)

1 byte is used by the '#', 12 by the given table name, and 17 by the
session info. I'm not sure how exactly the 17 bytes are used, other
than that spid is in there somewhere:

1> select @@spid
2> go
+========+
| |
+========+
| 17 |
+--------+

I suspect changing this to a hash method would cause problems.

HTH,

/Mike


Sherlock, Kevin Posted on 2002-09-25 17:39:13.0Z
Message-ID: <3D91F4B1.76B5A8C@qwest.com.nospam>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:39:13 -0500
From: "Sherlock, Kevin" <ksherlo@qwest.com.nospam>
Reply-To: ksherlo@qwest.com.nospam
Organization: QWEST Wireless
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf,ko
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com> <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com> <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------57D609824CED7B15720AD218"
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 65
NNTP-Posting-Host: np45.qwest.com 155.70.39.45
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:296
Article PK: 93464


Mike Harrold wrote:
>

> I believe you are making an incorrect assumption. I do not believe that
> ASE uses any hashing mechanism for temp table names. The name is derived
> from the spid and other session info.
>
> Consider:
>
> 1> create table #temp12chars ( c char(1) )
> 2> go
> 1> create table #temp12chars2 ( c char(1) )
> 2> go
> 1> select name from tempdb..sysobjects where name like '#temp%'
> 2> go
> +================================+
> | name |
> +================================+
> | #temp12chars200000170013410924 |
> +--------------------------------+
> | #temp12chars_00000170013410924 |
> +--------------------------------+
>
> (2 rows affected)
>
> 1 byte is used by the '#', 12 by the given table name, and 17 by the
> session info. I'm not sure how exactly the 17 bytes are used, other
> than that spid is in there somewhere:

Mike, I don't think Frank is misunderstanding anything, I read it as his
suggestion to use a hashing mechanism to allow for longer temp table names.

As for the format of the temp table names (vi Bret Halford):

The first 13 character are the table name, if the table name given is
less than 13 characters then it is padded to 13 chars with
underscores, if it was greater than 13 chars the name is truncated. The
next 2 characters (digits) are the nesting level at which the
table was created. The next 5 characters (digits) are the spid and the
next 10 are the login time of the user session (number of 1/300th
seconds since midnight).

ie a table created with name #temp12chars by spid 1
#tem12chars_ 00000010013410924

(#temp12chars_)(00)(00001)(0013410924)
V V V V
table name nesting- spid login time
padded with level in 1/300 secs since midnight
underscores


Download VCard ksherlo.vcf


Frank_Hamersley Posted on 2002-09-26 00:17:42.0Z
From: "Frank_Hamersley" <terabite@bigpond.com>
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com> <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com> <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com>
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:17:42 +1000
Lines: 15
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Message-ID: <Z41t$OPZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: ESS-p-144-138-5-192.mega.tmns.net.au 144.138.5.192
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:295
Article PK: 93470


"Mike Harrold" wrote
> I believe you are making an incorrect assumption. I do not believe that
> ASE uses any hashing mechanism for temp table names. The name is derived
> from the spid and other session info.

Thats why I identified it with the word "lazy"...ie no consideration given
to conserving name space...just trying to assure uniqueness.

> I suspect changing this to a hash method would cause problems.
Hence my nomination of a bit wise "hash in use" map.

Cheers,

Frank.


j Posted on 2002-09-26 07:59:14.0Z
From: J
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 03:59:14 -0400
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
Message-ID: <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums>
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com> <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com> <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <Z41t$OPZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com>
Lines: 6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!webforums.sybase.com!news
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:294
Article PK: 93463

How about simply increasing the 30 character limit on object-names ?

This may be usefull for a number of other uses, including easier porting
from other database engines...

J


Frank_Hamersley Posted on 2002-11-07 00:23:42.0Z
From: "Frank_Hamersley" <terabite@bigpond.com>
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <143icOxYCHA.198@forums.sybase.com> <GPOJIC3YCHA.295@forums.sybase.com> <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <Z41t$OPZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums>
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:23:42 +1100
Lines: 28
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Message-ID: <zrpE5WfhCHA.258@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.134.215.103
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:259
Article PK: 93433


<J> wrote
> How about simply increasing the 30 character limit on object-names ?
>
> This may be usefull for a number of other uses, including easier porting
> from other database engines...
>

Just to refocus the thread I wasn't advocating an expansion of the 30
character limit...although I do admit it seems a bit light on in this day
and age. Clearly that would be a major version change event with
implications for Mike and many others (and therefore a much longer delivery
cycle).

What I was after was increased preservation of the #temp table name within
the existing name size, hoping it could be cheaply delivered in a point
release.

This would be transparent to most application users who do not scour the
tempdb looking for session specific instances, and would hopefully present
no problems to anyone who is...if they have coded carefully ;-).

Is there any way of gauging the receptiveness of the ASE team to the hash
table concept?

Regards,

Frank.


Mike Harrold Posted on 2002-09-26 22:13:50.0Z
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <Z41t$OPZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001)
From: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Originator: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Message-ID: <s0I29naZCHA.197@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:13:50 -0400
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.core.com 169.207.1.89
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:293
Article PK: 93465

In article <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums>,

<J> wrote:
>
>How about simply increasing the 30 character limit on object-names ?
>
>This may be usefull for a number of other uses, including easier porting
>from other database engines...
>
>J

Backwards compatability. We have lots of stored procs that rely on
object names having length 30 or less...

/Mike


Anthony Mandic Posted on 2002-09-27 09:06:16.0Z
Message-ID: <3D941F88.EC1584F9@start.com.au>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:06:16 +1000
From: Anthony Mandic <am_is_not@start.com.au>
Organization: Mandic Consulting Pty. Ltd.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <nUtz#MLZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <Z41t$OPZCHA.77@forums.sybase.com> <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums> <s0I29naZCHA.197@forums.sybase.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.3.176.10
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:292
Article PK: 93462


Mike Harrold wrote:

> Backwards compatability. We have lots of stored procs that rely on
> object names having length 30 or less...

Out of curiosity, can you give an example? I would also
wonder why you don't pull the value out of spt_values or
get the length of the sysname datatype. This would make
it more portable if the length were to change.

-am © 2002


Mike Harrold Posted on 2002-09-27 19:43:23.0Z
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums> <s0I29naZCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <3D941F88.EC1584F9@start.com.au>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test75 (Feb 13, 2001)
From: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Originator: ao@shell.core.com (Mike Harrold)
Message-ID: <#7fnj4lZCHA.324@forums.sybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:43:23 -0400
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.core.com 169.207.1.89
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:291
Article PK: 93460

In article <3D941F88.EC1584F9@start.com.au>,

Anthony Mandic <am_is_not@start.com.au> wrote:
>
>Mike Harrold wrote:
>
>> Backwards compatability. We have lots of stored procs that rely on
>> object names having length 30 or less...
>
> Out of curiosity, can you give an example? I would also
> wonder why you don't pull the value out of spt_values or
> get the length of the sysname datatype. This would make
> it more portable if the length were to change.
>

I guess I'm not following you. How can I write a script to create a
stored procedure with parameters of (currently) varchar(30) in either
of the ways you mention?

/Mike


Anthony Mandic Posted on 2002-09-28 01:48:39.0Z
Message-ID: <3D950A77.E051FE17@start.com.au>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:48:39 +1000
From: Anthony Mandic <am_is_not@start.com.au>
Organization: Mandic Consulting Pty. Ltd.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums> <s0I29naZCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <3D941F88.EC1584F9@start.com.au> <#7fnj4lZCHA.324@forums.sybase.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.3.176.10
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:290
Article PK: 93461


Mike Harrold wrote:

> >> Backwards compatability. We have lots of stored procs that rely on
> >> object names having length 30 or less...
> >
> > Out of curiosity, can you give an example? I would also
> > wonder why you don't pull the value out of spt_values or
> > get the length of the sysname datatype. This would make
> > it more portable if the length were to change.
>
> I guess I'm not following you. How can I write a script to create a
> stored procedure with parameters of (currently) varchar(30) in either
> of the ways you mention?

OK, I misunderstood you. I thought you were checking lengths
within the sprocs and not when creating them. But you can probably
still write the script to call isql first and retrieve the
value. Alternately, you could set up a variable in the scripts
and set it globally somewhere. That would make it easy to
change if required.

-am © 2002


j Posted on 2002-11-05 17:43:08.0Z
From: J
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:43:08 -0500
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: Hash table Prefix name limitation (12 characters)
Message-ID: <8FC3A26BFCD8F8670061551985256C68.000E669B85256C42@webforums>
References: <k6KDuAsYCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <9DA9A13DE526178C002BDFFD85256C40.0005FA4785256C40@webforums> <s0I29naZCHA.197@forums.sybase.com> <3D941F88.EC1584F9@start.com.au> <#7fnj4lZCHA.324@forums.sybase.com> <3D950A77.E051FE17@start.com.au>
Lines: 14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com!webforums.sybase.com!news
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:266
Article PK: 93438


>OK, I misunderstood you. I thought you were checking lengths
>within the sprocs and not when creating them. But you can >probably still
write the script to call isql first and retrieve
>the value. Alternately, you could set up a variable in the
>scripts and set it globally somewhere. That would make it easy
>to change if required.

I agree with Mike.
This is not a valid excuse for not making a change which would not cost
much, but is actually asked for by clients.

J