Anyone know of a good/quick (and free) way to compress HTML code?

"DAVID" wrote in message
...
I thought the limit for a memo field was nearer 65K?

No, the limit for a Textbox CONTROL is 64K OR 32K. The limit
for a memo FIELD is 1GB or 2GB.

So if you are using straight Access (no DAO etc) then you are in effect
limited to a textbox which would explain where the 64K limit comes from.
Hence the limit on a memo field unless you use DAO etc which bypasses using
a textbox.

Nice to understand where the limitations come from. Thanks.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 May, 01:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

And both outperform SQL Server on equivalent hardware.

That's a very dubious benchmark. Even MUMPS wil outperform SQL Server
for some apps on some hardware. It's not because it's "better" though,
it's because it's pitched at a smaller-scale market sector. MySQL
(less so for Postgres) is a hierarchical DB with some pretensions to a
relational facade. If you ask it to do hierarchical stuff, which is
all most small-scalle DBAs ever understand or use, then it runs
quickly and efficiently. If you ask it to model some valid relational
structure that doesn't map onto a hierarchical model well, then it
falls flat.

So MySQL will work fine for nearly all small web sites, whatever
they're doing, and is probably what ought to be used for them. However
saying that it will always beat SQL Server is too misleading to be
worth stating.


Andy,

Exactly what "valid relational structures" are you talking about? Both
do relational designs quite well.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 May, 01:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

And both outperform SQL Server on equivalent hardware.

That's a very dubious benchmark. Even MUMPS wil outperform SQL Server
for some apps on some hardware. It's not because it's "better" though,
it's because it's pitched at a smaller-scale market sector. MySQL
(less so for Postgres) is a hierarchical DB with some pretensions to a
relational facade. If you ask it to do hierarchical stuff, which is
all most small-scalle DBAs ever understand or use, then it runs
quickly and efficiently. If you ask it to model some valid relational
structure that doesn't map onto a hierarchical model well, then it
falls flat.

So MySQL will work fine for nearly all small web sites, whatever
they're doing, and is probably what ought to be used for them. However
saying that it will always beat SQL Server is too misleading to be
worth stating.


I'll add one more thing. If I wanted extra things like recursive sql,
I'd be running DB2 on Linux.

SQL Server is ok for small sites. But requires way too many resources
for a big site.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

I'm not sure about the exact numbers. Also, I don't know when you have to
use GetChunk to get the data, and when you can just use the field value. A
search here would probably find better information.

(david)

"Brian Cryer" wrote in message
...
"DAVID" wrote in message
...
I thought the limit for a memo field was nearer 65K?

No, the limit for a Textbox CONTROL is 64K OR 32K. The limit
for a memo FIELD is 1GB or 2GB.

So if you are using straight Access (no DAO etc) then you are in effect
limited to a textbox which would explain where the 64K limit comes from.
Hence the limit on a memo field unless you use DAO etc which bypasses
using a textbox.

Nice to understand where the limitations come from. Thanks.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
. ..
Martin Harran wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
. ..


[...]

And both outperform SQL Server on equivalent hardware. Let's see you run
Windows 2003 Server, SQL Server (even Express Edition), IIS, SMTP server
and the rest on 128M. Heck - you can't even boot W2K3 Server Server in
128M.

But Linux and all the rest run quite well in that.


Well, if your priority is to have your server running on 128M memory or
other low spec hardware, then fine, go with Linux, that's not the priority
for most businesses.

And bring the system up to 512M-2K and it screams.

Sorry - Windows is an OK desktop. But it makes a lousy server.

W2003 is an excellent server.

Add in SQL 2005 and Exchange Server - on decent hardware, needless to say -
and you've got a set up that will handle anything that most businesses can
through at it.

Martin Harran wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
. ..
Martin Harran wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
. ..


[...]

And both outperform SQL Server on equivalent hardware. Let's see you run
Windows 2003 Server, SQL Server (even Express Edition), IIS, SMTP server
and the rest on 128M. Heck - you can't even boot W2K3 Server Server in
128M.

But Linux and all the rest run quite well in that.


Well, if your priority is to have your server running on 128M memory or
other low spec hardware, then fine, go with Linux, that's not the priority
for most businesses.


If your priority is to waste money on unnecessary hardware, then fine -
go with Windows. Cost and reliability are the priority for most
businesses - why do you think the vast majority of the web runs on Linux?

And bring the system up to 512M-2K and it screams.

Sorry - Windows is an OK desktop. But it makes a lousy server.

W2003 is an excellent server.

Add in SQL 2005 and Exchange Server - on decent hardware, needless to say -
and you've got a set up that will handle anything that most businesses can
through at it.



I've got one customer still on W2K3. With 512Mb they still don't
perform as well - even on static pages - as my Linux systems running on
128Mb.

And when you bring asp or asp.net into it, it's much slower and more
resource hungry than either Perl or PHP.

And my Linux systems cost several thousand dollars less than the
equivalent Windows systems.

+--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================