That would work if I ordered by Identity, but I need it ordered by name. If I order by Identity then get the top 50 the name order will be all screwed up.
______________________ steve oliver atnet solutions, inc. http://www.atnetsolutions.com -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:09 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: MSSQL and LIMIT Steve, You use the WHERE clause to drill. For example, if you order by an ident ity field, you could track the minimum and maximum value then where becomes WHERE userid > #mySavedMaxId# First time through it would be "> 0" (top 50), then the next time through it would "> 50" (or some other number from that postion), next time through it would be " > 100" ... etc. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Steve Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:59 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: MSSQL and LIMIT Um, that would just retrieve rows 1 through 50, I need something like rows 2000 through 2050 ______________________ steve oliver atnet solutions, inc. http://www.atnetsolutions.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:56 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: MSSQL and LIMIT SELECT TOP 50 column FROM table ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:48 pm Subject: MSSQL and LIMIT > I am doing a query on a rather large table, lets say there are 2000 0 > rows, and I want to display them on a page, 50 rows at a time, > startingfrom row 200. > > I know in MySQL I can just do a Limit 200,50. But MSSQL doesn't > seem to > have anything like that. I tried a stored procedure to use a curso r, > but that returns 50 recordsets, instead of 50 rows in one recordset . > > The way I see it done time and time again is to retrieve all records > with cfquery, then limit the output with cfoutput's startrow and > maxrows, or cfloop's startrow and endrow. > > But that would cause the entire query to be retrieved each and > everytime, which seems just plain stupid to me. > > The database is updated regularly, so cacheing isn't an option. > > Does anyone else have a better way to do this? > > ______________________ > steve oliver > atnet solutions, inc. > http://www.atnetsolutions.com > _______________________ _________________________ ______________________ > Dedicated Windows 2000 Server > PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER > Instant Activation . $99/Month . Free Setup > http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusiona > FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion com/ > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sideb ar=lists > ______________________________________________________________________ Get Your Own Dedicated Windows 2000 Server PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER Instant Activation · $99/Month · Free Setup http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusionb FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
