> I always program my own database engine. I had hoped that
> the FilePut, FilePutObject and its relatives FileGet and
> FileGetObject would be able to address more than 2GB.
> I'm thinking of 16GB files which I can address on a byte
> and strings array level.
>
> I do NOT want to use MS-SQL(yes unlimitted filesize) or
> Access (2GB limit too). And even if they where able to
> support the filesize I want (>16GB) than I prefer to
> program the stuff myself.
>
> Does anybody have a clue to adddress this without creating
> 8 files of 2GB each? Can somebody tell me why they did not
> use the Long integer instead of the regular integer.

> Does anybody have a clue to adddress this without creating
> 8 files of 2GB each?

> Can somebody tell me why they did not
> use the Long integer instead of the regular integer.

"Rembrand" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01b001c3a43a$1b156030$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> Hi there fellows
>
> I always program my own database engine. I had hoped that
> the FilePut, FilePutObject and its relatives FileGet and
> FileGetObject would be able to address more than 2GB.
> I'm thinking of 16GB files which I can address on a byte
> and strings array level.
>
> I do NOT want to use MS-SQL(yes unlimitted filesize) or
> Access (2GB limit too). And even if they where able to
> support the filesize I want (>16GB) than I prefer to
> program the stuff myself.
>
> Does anybody have a clue to adddress this without creating
> 8 files of 2GB each? Can somebody tell me why they did not
> use the Long integer instead of the regular integer.
>
> Help appreciated.
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>