Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] Set-Returning Functions WAS: On the performance of

2004-02-01 Thread Bill Moran
Josh Berkus wrote: Bill, I don't understand at all. If I do "SELECT * FROM set_returning_function()" and all I'm going to do is iterate through the columns and rows, adding them to a two dimensional array that will be marshalled as a SOAP message, what about not knowing the nature of the return s

Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] Set-Returning Functions WAS: On the performance of

2004-02-01 Thread Bill Moran
Josh Berkus wrote: Bill, First off: discussion moved to the SQL list, where it really belongs. True, it started out as [PERFORM], but is no longer. Well, I would have agreed with the uselessness, until this project. The "source of endless debugging" frightens me! Well, the last time I tried to

Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] Set-Returning Functions WAS: On the performance of views

2004-01-29 Thread Josh Berkus
Bill, > I don't understand at all. If I do "SELECT * FROM > set_returning_function()" and all I'm going to do is iterate through the > columns and rows, adding them to a two dimensional array that will be > marshalled as a SOAP message, what about not knowing the nature of the > return set can ca

Re: [SQL] [PERFORM] Set-Returning Functions WAS: On the performance of views

2004-01-29 Thread Josh Berkus
Bill, First off: discussion moved to the SQL list, where it really belongs. > Well, I would have agreed with the uselessness, until this project. The > "source of endless debugging" frightens me! Well, the last time I tried to use this capability was SQL Server 7. On that model, the problem