On 11/13/07, Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote: > > > Working with smaller result sets is pretty standard with SQL > databases. If some query is returning billions of data, the query is > wrong. A very common idiom with SQL programming is to first do a > "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM x WHERE y", and then go through the result set > in smaller steps using LIMIT. A Google search result page is an > example for this in action.
I guess I thought you were trying to say that when you make a query, you were only expecting ONE result from every query. Would it make sense to you to expect a result set to return 10 rows (or more), and then the SQL object (whatever the name) would then be sent a bang to get the next row set? I am assuming that the first result would be sent upon the initial return of the data from the call. This was my point of comparing this with a [textfile] object. Mike > > Ciao > -- > Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ > > _______________________________________________ > PD-dev mailing list > PD-dev@iem.at > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > -- Help the Environment, Plant a Bush back in Texas! "I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." -- Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826) "Give Peace a Chance" -- John Lennon (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal. —Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician If you think you can, or you think you can't, you are probably right. —Mark Twain "Art may imitate life, but life imitates TV." Ani DiFranco _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
