That's a good question. I have no idea. I've never run into problems, though I haven't used it on huge recordsets. The farther up the hierarchy you go, the less stuff changes, in general, so caching could be used, probably with great effect.
Either way, it's fast enough until load testing proves otherwise, at least in my book. ;) cheers, barneyb On 2/1/06, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow. Does that really perform OK on large recordsets? If I'm getting it > right, if you had 100,000 records and wanted all of the top level set > members (the problem would be smalle for lower level nodes), you'd run a > query which would find every record, compute the sub query for each record > as part of the filter and then only return the records with the appropriate > sub query value. Does that scale well to large record sets? > > Best Wishes, > Peter > -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 100 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:231055 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
