COUNT() versus .recordcount

2006-09-06 Thread Michael E. Carluen
Pls confirm which of the two ways is more efficient or more recommended- please advise if it even makes a difference. Thanks! SELECT count(fieldname) as thecount OR SELECT fieldname .. .. cfset countfromquery = queryname.recordcount

RE: COUNT() versus .recordcount

2006-09-06 Thread Dave Watts
Pls confirm which of the two ways is more efficient or more recommended- please advise if it even makes a difference. Thanks! SELECT count(fieldname) as thecount OR SELECT fieldname .. .. cfset countfromquery = queryname.recordcount If you don't need the actual records, COUNT.

Re: COUNT() versus .recordcount

2006-09-06 Thread Mike Chabot
Count(primaryKey) is definitely better. Less information returned from the database so less bandwidth is used, plus the result can be obtained instantly from the index (I suppose this depends on the db). -Mike Chabot On 9/6/06, Michael E. Carluen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pls confirm which of

Re: COUNT() versus .recordcount

2006-09-06 Thread Jerry Johnson
one returns a single integer with the count. the other returns every single fieldname in the table I would think the first would always be quicker. On the other hand, if you need the list of fields anyway, option 2 comes free with the query. On 9/6/06, Michael E. Carluen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: COUNT() versus .recordcount

2006-09-06 Thread Michael E. Carluen
Thanks Dave W., Mike! -Original Message- From: Mike Chabot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:35 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: COUNT() versus .recordcount Count(primaryKey) is definitely better. Less information returned from the database so less

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-13 Thread Philip Arnold - ASP
Ok, Justin MacCarthy pointed out something for me to try. He suggested using count(cfid) instead of count(*) which would yield the same results. This table has like 944 records btw, here are the results of time in ms taken to run 1000 queries of each over 5 tries: Using count(cfid): 3313

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-07 Thread Justin Kidman
Well, that is kind of a weighted test then, since using Count() + data verses RecordCount + data, you are really just adding Count(), since the data and RecordCount is given with both of those. Justin Kidman -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-07 Thread Kevin Miller
: count() or recordcount In my situation, I needed the data anyway, so the comparison was Count() + data versus RecordCount + data. Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/06/00 01:01PM I tested this using CF 4.01 using a 9000+ record Access database. Using Query.RecordCount was actually about 10-20

count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Bud
Which is faster? I'm presuming count() or what else would it be good for? -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.twcreations.com/ 954.721.3452

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Andy Ewings
-- Andrew Ewings Project Manager Thoughtbubble Ltd -- -Original Message- From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 September 2000 17:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: count() or recordcount Which is faster? I'm presuming

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Dan Haley
, September 06, 2000 9:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: count() or recordcount Which is faster? I'm presuming count() or what else would it be good for? -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Justin Kidman
Just ran a test using my CGLOBAL table that holds client variables in an ODBC database. Over 1000 loops of a query grabbing cfid and using recordcount, it took 20031 ms of time. To get the recordcount using the count(*) method, over 1000 loops of the same table, it only took 3406 ms. So, if you

Re: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Todd Ashworth
In a direct comparison, I would think count() would be since it's run on the SQL server. Todd Ashworth - Original Message - From: "Bud" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: count() or recordcount | Which is faster? I'm

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Dan Haley
-Original Message- From: Andy Ewings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 9:17 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: count() or recordcount If you do a select * and then do a record count you have to perform 2 operations. Select count(*) is only one so I think you

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Kevin Miller
Message- From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 September 2000 17:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: count() or recordcount Which is faster? I'm presuming count() or what else would it be good for? -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Justin Kidman
Kidman -Original Message- From: Justin Kidman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: count() or recordcount Just ran a test using my CGLOBAL table that holds client variables in an ODBC database. Over 1000 loops

Re: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Jamie Keane
PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 12:31 PM Subject: Re: count() or recordcount In a direct comparison, I would think count() would be since it's run on the SQL server. Todd Ashworth - Original Message - From: "Bud" [EMAIL

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Jeremy Allen
---[ ]--- -Original Message- From: Jamie Keane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: count() or recordcount Furthermore, count() is just that, a tally of the rows as a query column in and of itself. The RecordCount variable

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Dave Watts
If you do a select * and then do a record count you have to perform 2 operations. Select count(*) is only one so I think you are right - count(*) will be faster but it'll be negligible unless you have a huge amount of records Actually, the difference can be pretty significant even with

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Bud
On 9/6/00, Dan Haley penned: Two totally different beasts. If you want to pull data back from the database and then determine how many rows were returned, use query.recordcount rather than going back to the database for a row count. If you only want to find out how many rows but don't need the

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Kuehn, Matthew
le !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN" HTML HEAD META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2650.12" TITLERE: count() or recordcount/T

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread David E. Crawford
al Message- From: Kuehn, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 17:58 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: count() or recordcount This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Kuehn, Matthew
le !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN" HTML HEAD META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2650.12" TITLERE: count() or recordcount/T

RE: count() or recordcount

2000-09-06 Thread Kevin Miller
In my situation, I needed the data anyway, so the comparison was Count() + data versus RecordCount + data. Kevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/06/00 01:01PM I tested this using CF 4.01 using a 9000+ record Access database. Using Query.RecordCount was actually about 10-20% faster. The thing