-
AuthorPosts
-
September 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm #190254
Hello i have a huge problem…
i’m making my RESUME FORM fields in the JA Job Board…
i have many fields (over 100) and in some time the DATABASE couldn’t be rebuild again (error)…
since mysql has NO field limitation by number but by ROW SIZE (depended on the fields of the table)
.. i run over to DB to see what is happening……and i was amazed seeing that all fields (textfields) where varchar(255)….
logic i would say since the “field’s creation form” has NO “field length option…)
so fields like name, surname and any other textfields are FORCED to be 255 character which is unacceptable…i think an extra field param should be added defining the field’s length in the TABLE..
and watch out! SEPERATOR fields should be for example varchar(1) or something… since you decided to be column these too.. (can’t figure out why…)
thanks!
HeR0 FriendHeR0
- Join date:
- August 2011
- Posts:
- 3626
- Downloads:
- 0
- Uploads:
- 61
- Thanks:
- 33
- Thanked:
- 588 times in 549 posts
September 4, 2013 at 8:08 am #504502Hi Sooraj ,
Yes, it is MySQL limit. Please try to edit the length of the fields manuallly.
<blockquote>and i was amazed seeing that all fields (textfields) where varchar(255)….
logic i would say since the “field’s creation form” has NO “field length option…)
so fields like name, surname and any other textfields are FORCED to be 255 character which is unacceptable…</blockquote> Reducing size is not the best solution and we will try to update this in future.Regards
September 4, 2013 at 10:00 am #504534<em>@HeR0 387826 wrote:</em><blockquote>Hi Sooraj ,
Yes, it is MySQL limit. Please try to edit the length of the fields manuallly.
Reducing size is not the best solution and we will try to update this in future.
Regards</blockquote>
ok … i resized my self …(in the mean time) , but thanks for anwsering!
one small issue again with DB..
.
in #__ja_form_fields the field “field_ordering” is TINYINT(4)… this means that the field can be -127 to +127 with sign…so in my resume i have more than 127 fields and every field above No 127 get’s the same ordering!!
i fixed this by simply altering the table’s field ‘field_ordering’ to int(11) ** with no data lossmaybe this could be arranged in new version too!
best regards,
christopher
-
AuthorPosts
This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by HeR0 11 years, 3 months ago.
We moved to new unified forum. Please post all new support queries in our New Forum