On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Erik Holstad <erikhols...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> Wow that sounds really good. So you are saying if I set it to reverse sort >> order and count 10 for the first round I get the last 10, >> for the next call I just set the last column from the first call to start >> and I will get the columns -10- -20, so to speak? > > > Actually, since they are reversed and you're trying to move backwards, > you'll need to pass the last column from the first query (since they will be > sorted in reverse order) as the start to the next one with reverse still set > to true. > > -Brandon > > Thanks a lot Brandon for clearing that out for me, I think that was what I was trying to say. But that is really good, cause now I don't have to store the data twice in different sort orders. -- Regards Erik
