* Da Martian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-25 11:35]: > >What prevents you from doing the same yourself? Just collect > >the data in a memory buffer as you get it, before processing > >it. > > Nothing but effiency as discussed. Basically, as Mr Cote has > said, its either a count(*) query or O(n) step calls. The > former means two statements have to be run, if this is a heavy > statement its not that great. The latter is best option > available, because as Mr Cote points out step isnt that heavy. > The idea behind me prompting of this discussion is to get the > best of both worlds. ie. the effiency of count(*) query without > the need to execute two queries. At the end of the day its not > serious as many work arounds/solutions are available. > > >That doesn't seem to make sense – after all, the count can > >only be returned *after* all the rows have been collected. By > >then you know the count yourself anyway. > > But to return all the rows just to count them requires N calls > to step. If the data set is large you only want to return > a subset to start with. So you wouldnt know the count. If you > dont know the count, you cant update GUI type things etc..
I still fail to understand the problem. Either you want the data from the query, or you don’t. If you want it, then you run the query once and buffer the results in memory before you process them, so you know the count before you start processing. Or you don’t want the data, then you use a COUNT(*) query. In either case, it is only one query you need to run. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
