You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
In useful terms, "big enough". It can hold more text than any human would find readable.
After researching I found the answer Atlassian OnDemand uses Postgresql https://confluence.atlassian.com/cloud/database-and-ip-information-744721662.html.
The limitation for Postgresql text fields is approximately 1 GB. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/datatype-character.html
Hope this helps Arjun.
Thanks and Regards,
I understand you must not be a technical user so this won't make sense to you but I am designing an internal database that we transfer data from the JIRA CLOUD API, and when I make SQL table columns they want an exact length. Big Enough is not a valid size for a nvarchar column. For purposes of data storage and compatibility in the data transfer application exact length is a very essential piece of information.
I found this documentation. Check the item jira.text.field.character.limit
I sure agree to the human factor, uunless this human is willing to do harm. What about someone who wants to serios slow down the system or provoke something like a crash?
By filling up the textfields your database is going to be an enormous monster that is practicaly not managable anymore.
Same answer applies. If your add-on is dumping over-large data into a field, it's a complete waste of time and you're doing the wrong thing.
Nearly. What I'm trying to say is that trying to put a number on it is pointless. 4000 isn't enough, I know of many systems that have gone over that. But equally, you won't find systems that use the *physical* limit because humans simply won't enter 65-ish copies of the world's best-selling book (uncompressed), you can be pretty sure they won't read all of it, and the web-server is likely to time-out before rendering it all. But you can't guarantee where it will land between " a couple of words" and "a long rambling description of something". So, yet again, I have to say "don't limit it". It's the wrong thing to do, and it's simply not necessary in any modern database anyway.
I'm technical enough to understand that, but the answer is still "big enough". What you're trying to do is limit something that you don't know to a number you can't know. The really simple answer is that you have to assume 2^32-1 bytes, because the field is technically only limited by the size of the database field. (Oh, I'm also technical enough to point out that someone is probably doing something very wrong if they are asking you for "an exact length". It strongly implies someone has done a database introduction course and not quite got it)
Why? It's utterly useless information because over-large text fields are useless to you.