It rhymed with Smoracle. Which is really ironic because you’d think that’s the ONE company that would (a) understand how to write a SQL statement, and (b) get really effing concerned when a simple database query broke their product.
It seems from the description that there’s the length of the request there stored in 11 bits, hell knows why, so max of 2046 (682*3, that’s 683*3 = 2049 if starting with 1), and one symbol takes an increment of 3, hell knows why.
That’s, ahem, yes, a pretty gross mistake for such rhyming companies, the kind only I am allowed to make.
It rhymed with Smoracle. Which is really ironic because you’d think that’s the ONE company that would (a) understand how to write a SQL statement, and (b) get really effing concerned when a simple database query broke their product.
Oracle doesn’t know how to write software. Only contracts and lawsuits.
It seems from the description that there’s the length of the request there stored in 11 bits, hell knows why, so max of 2046 (682*3, that’s 683*3 = 2049 if starting with 1), and one symbol takes an increment of 3, hell knows why.
That’s, ahem, yes, a pretty gross mistake for such rhyming companies, the kind only I am allowed to make.
Oh, cool! I never figured out why they had the 683/684-character limit thing, so it’s cool beans to you - thank you!
They ended up “fixing” the problem by increasing the character limit to 2048, which was nice.