From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>
On May 24, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>
On May 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 05/23/2012 01:13 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Using count() was simply a trick to be sure to get a record back even if the entity is empty... but if we use an entity that
we are sure is populated we don't have to use it, of course. Of course if we use count(*) we have to use it in an entity with
a very low number of rows... but I too would prefer to avoid it.
select 1;
Thank you Adam, this is the "trick" I was looking for when I mentioned option
#3 in my first email.
I will test the system with it and then commit.
Jacopo
Which entity will you use Jacopo?
When I first saw Adam's comment I thought he was suggesting to simply execute
"select 1"
in order to run a "query" with no table to return a "record" with one field
containing 1.
But I maybe misunderstood the suggestion and at least on Derby this doesn't
seem to work; but I still need to fully test.
In my opinion adding a new entity for this would be an overkill; one solution
could be the following:
select count(key_name) from entity_key_store where 1 = 2
that always returns one record and should be efficient on mostly all dbs.
Sounds good. My idea of a new entity was also to make clear what it was about.
"select 1" works on Postgres
Jacques
Jacopo
Jacques
