Sam Carleton wrote:
>
>
SNIP
I take it the brain removal was necessary for the politician to
attain higher office?
>>> I cannot see that being the case, they get worse off as they climb
>>> the ranks, not better off!
>>>
>>
>> I meant the politician having brain remov
John Elrick wrote:
Sam Carleton wrote:
John Elrick wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
Shane Harrelson wrote:
Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET
Sam Carleton wrote:
>
>
> John Elrick wrote:
>> John Stanton wrote:
>>
>>> Igor Tandetnik wrote:
>>>
John Stanton wrote:
> Shane Harrelson wrote:
>
>> Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is
>> not standar
John Elrick wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
Shane Harrelson wrote:
Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is
not standard SQL
What makes you think tha
John Stanton wrote:
> Igor Tandetnik wrote:
>
>> John Stanton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Shane Harrelson wrote:
>>>
>>>
Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is
not standard SQL
>>> What makes you think that transaction
My error. I was replying to the wrong email.
Shane Harrelson wrote:
> We're not talking about transaction control - we're talking about limiting
> the size of the result set. And LIMIT/OFFSET clauses are not supported by
> the SQL-92 standard. LIMIT is listed as a reserved word, but that's it
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
> John Stanton wrote:
>
>> Shane Harrelson wrote:
>>
>>> Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is
>>> not standard SQL
>>>
>> What makes you think that transaction control is not part of SQL-92?
>>
>
> What does LIMIT clause ha
We're not talking about transaction control - we're talking about limiting
the size of the result set. And LIMIT/OFFSET clauses are not supported by
the SQL-92 standard. LIMIT is listed as a reserved word, but that's it.
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
On Wed, May
John Stanton wrote:
> Shane Harrelson wrote:
>> Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is
>> not standard SQL
>
> What makes you think that transaction control is not part of SQL-92?
What does LIMIT clause have to do with transaction control, in your
opinion?
Igor Ta
What makes you think that transaction control is not part of SQL-92?
If a database engine does not support transaction control it is not a
full implementation. Transaction control is at the very heart of
effective data management.
Shane Harrelson wrote:
> Additionally, it's important to note
I just learned today that Interbase 7.5 does not support it either.
Shane Harrelson wrote:
Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is not
standard SQL, and although it is supported by SQLite, and many other SQL
engines, there are some that do NOT support it, most notabl
Additionally, it's important to note that the LIMIT/OFFSET clause is not
standard SQL, and although it is supported by SQLite, and many other SQL
engines, there are some that do NOT support it, most notably Microsoft SQL
Server.
HTH.
-Shane
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Sam Carleton wrote:
Kees Nuyt wrote:
Imagine a SELECT with an ORDER BY which makes SQLite sort
the resultset before it can return the first row in the
resultset. Need I say more?
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=ScrollingCursor
Thank you for the link, it is a VERY useful read, VERY useful!
Sam
On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:26:31 -0400, Sam Carleton
wrote:
>Marco Bambini wrote:
>> SELECT ... LIMIT 1;
>>
>Marco, Is this to say that adding the LIMIT 1 does make it more efficient?
Not necessarily.
Imagine a SELECT with an ORDER BY which makes SQLite sort
the resultset before it can return t
On 19 May 2009, at 4:26pm, Sam Carleton wrote:
> Marco Bambini wrote:
>> SELECT ... LIMIT 1;
>>
> Marco, Is this to say that adding the LIMIT 1 does make it more
> efficient?
LIMIT does not make the query (much) more efficient: the software
still needs to do the same filtering and sorting,
Marco Bambini wrote:
SELECT ... LIMIT 1;
Marco, Is this to say that adding the LIMIT 1 does make it more efficient?
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
SELECT ... LIMIT 1;
--
Marco Bambini
http://www.sqlabs.com
http://www.creolabs.com/payshield/
On May 19, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Sam Carleton wrote:
> I am far from a SQL expert, but I am 99.9% sure there is SQL syntax
> to limit
> the number of results, I have not looked it up but I will in a
I am far from a SQL expert, but I am 99.9% sure there is SQL syntax to limit
the number of results, I have not looked it up but I will in a little
while...
I only need one result. Since I am working with the C/C++ API, I plan to
simply call sqlite3_step() only once.
Is there any point in using t
18 matches
Mail list logo