Max Query Length Exceeded and Field Truncated

[Alan DeKok]

Robert Gabriel wrote:
> Alan, I don't appreciate your harsh response. One comes to these lists
> for help not scorn and ridicule.

  One comes to this list for help, not friendship.  Short, pointed,
answers are helpful.  Sadly, many people think such answers are rude.

  Sorry.. but I don't have time to write long flowery answers.  And you
have no right to demand them, either.  This is a public mailing list,
where you may (or may not) get help for free.  Take what help you can get.

> Character count meaning the below and as stated above (IT WAS
> SHORTENED FOR BREVITY'S SAKE)

  I see.  You posted a question for help, and *misled us* about what you
were doing.

  And *I'm* the rude one?

  Here's a hint: when you ask for help, don't lie.  Post the information
that's requested, and take the actions that are suggested.  The only
people who get upset about following instructions are the people who
think flowery language is more important than solving their problem.

> so I didn't take up the whole post with
> log lines
> and surely now we can see it is 4KB in size (so it's 4096 bytes less
> the semicolon my mistake).
> 
> Am I thinking a bit?

  Starting.

  But... you edited the queries.  And you *didn't* say this in your
original message.  Another lie of omission.

  Lying about what you're doing makes it difficult to help you.  And
yes, you will likely get upset about being told you're lying.  Tough.
It's unquestionably what you did, and unquestionably the reason why my
response was "think about what you posted".  So you're upset at my
response because you are the one who started out with lies.

  In any case, you edited the queries to break the server.  Either fix
the queries so they're smaller, or poke the server source code to let it
use huge queries.  Since many of the assumptions in the code are that
the queries will be small, you may have to go spelunking through large
parts of the server to get huge queries to work.

  Good luck.

  Alan DeKok.