Apparently, only Int.MaxValue rows may be stored in a DataTable because the
accessor is defined as an int :

DataTable.Rows[int i]


Is this true ? How to handle # rows > Int.MaxValue ? ( aside from
multi-stage load )

It sucks, doesn't it. The limitations of the number of the rows in a table
that is.
I mean, who can live with only 2147483647 rows in memory?
Seriously, having more than 100 rows is pushing, having more than 1000 rows
is almost too much. Why would you need more than 1000 rows (ok, you can say
2000, but still)?
There are times you need a lot of rows in memory, but certainly not that
much. Othwerwise is a bad design.

--
Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/

"John A Grandy" <johnagrandy-at-gmail-dot-com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Apparently, only Int.MaxValue rows may be stored in a DataTable because
> the accessor is defined as an int :
>
> DataTable.Rows[int i]
>
>
> Is this true ? How to handle # rows > Int.MaxValue ? ( aside from
> multi-stage load )
>