Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
I know there used to be, and supposedly still is, a 64K limit to the form file sizes. However, I have a few forms that have been in production for over a year with CPS that are over 64K. I loaded them into a test system first, just to see what would happen, and I never received an error on import. So, we did some very thorough testing, and the forms worked great.
One is an OB flowsheet form and the other is a postpartum form that tracks data on up to 10 fetuses/births. They both have a lot of data being entered and displayed. But the 64K size limit has been exceeded without apparent problems.
Is this still really an issue? If so, can someone please explain, since we're using them without any apparent problems.
I figure someone else might want to know, too.
Thanks,
Robin Tardif
Posted : April 29, 2019 4:26 am
Its an old limitation, for awhile now, probably since they started supporting SQL Server 05 or 08. The new limit i much higher, around - 2,147,483,648. You shouldn't have to worry about truncation, you will have performance issues long before you reach that size.
Posted : April 29, 2019 4:38 am
Topic starter
Thanks, Michael.
I thought that was the case, since I wasn't having a problem importing any more, but I thought I'd ask. 64K isn't much.
Robin
Posted : April 29, 2019 4:44 am
Officially, GE/Virence never announced an increase for end users. Internally, their needs required an increase and work was done to support that work. It was never intended for end user consumption. Basically, it has been treated as an undocumented feature ever since it was 'leaked'.
The decision for exceeding the 64K limit is one that should be weighed carefully. 'Oversized' forms can adversely impact performance and lead to issues with functionality. Understanding how MEL is interpreted within the EMR may help guide you in your decision making process.
I personally try not to exceed the 64K limit in my builds. There simply are too many other ways to accomplish 'mega builds' without placing performance and stability at risk. I also favor the rapid response of smaller builds along with the ability to reduce redundant form builds by creating seamless navigation workflows that behave like multi-tab forms with the added bonus of being dynamic (tabs are not). To-mato, Ta-mato, right?
Posted : April 29, 2019 8:27 am
Topic starter
Thank you, Lee. I do try to keep my forms simple and under 64K. But occasionally, I do go over. So far, there has been no issues with performance or errors, and the providers are happy. Thank you for the feedback. I really do appreciate it.
Robin
Posted : April 29, 2019 6:03 pm
I have one form that is just over the 64k size, and continues to work. Thus I thought the 64k limit was an 'original limit' that had been expanded (albeit, without any official notification).
I try to keep my forms simpler, and use multiple forms (also good for sharing functions), but one of my forms has simply grown little by little to be more complex. And thus, >64k limit.
~Joe
Posted : April 30, 2019 12:13 am
Topic starter
Thanks, Joe. I had tried to load a form that about 68K on a whim to see what would happen, (in a test environment, of course!) and it worked with no issues. Like you, I just thought the 64K limit was something that pertinent to old versions of the EMR, but the newer versions of the EMR and CPS didn't have that limitation.
Posted : May 1, 2019 3:30 am
