On May 16, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Jay A. Kreibich wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scratched on
> the wall:
>> Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
>> databases.
>>
>> Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scratched on the
wall:
> Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
> databases.
>
> Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a query:
>
> SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE some_condition ORDER
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> My real question is if there is an efficient way to index the results
> of such a query. In other words, I'm looking for rows N through N+100
> of the result. Can I do much better than just executing the query and
> throwing away the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
> databases.
>
> Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a query:
>
> SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE some_condition ORDER BY rowid
>
> First, I'm assuming that in addition to
Sorry if this is a silly question - I don't have much experience with
databases.
Say I have a table with many (millions+) of rows and I have a query:
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE some_condition ORDER BY rowid
First, I'm assuming that in addition to whatever time some_condition
takes, I'll
5 matches
Mail list logo