I agreeunless absolutely necessary caching data from the DB guarantees your
data will be inconsistent with your last DB snapshot
If you're running out of cursors use the right cursor SELECT instead of
updateIf you're running out of connections use connection-pools...there are
plenty avaialble for any DB implementation
Dave?Martin ______________________________________________ Disclaimer and
confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to
the official business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature
and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended
recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this
transmission. > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:40:50 +0800> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: user@struts.apache.org> Subject: Re: Pagination Questions> > Hi Adam,>
Thanks for your reply. I am doing pagination like this now since I found> that
using index to do searching from a range of record is quite fast, much> faster
than I thought before. So I just use your suggested solution.> > > 2008/11/30
Adam Ruggles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >> > Personally I think it would be a bad
idea to buffer the data from the db,> > since most users when performing a
search will only look at the first page> > of results. It would be better to
simply return a limited set of results> > from the DB. Otherwise you might be
fetching data the user will never see.> >> > What I usually do is create an
object that stores a list of the current> > result set and the total number of
results. This object I create in the> > data layer and requires two db calls.
One to get a limited list of results> > and the second to get the total item
count.> >> > In the action I have an offset and resultsPerPage variable that I
pass to> > my> > data layer. I don't know what database you're using but most
allow you to> > limit the results, using an offset and number of results.> >>
>> > KE LI-2 wrote:> > >> > > Dear All,> > > I am currently working on
pagination to the result of search result. I> > > want to ask which solution is
better?> > > 1. After user chooses some criterias and then clicks the search> >
> button, the server will return the size of search result and the> > > objects
of first page of the search result. Then when user clicks the> > > different
page number, the server will get the data for that page from> > > DB. But for
this solution, it requires DB access when you click the> > > page number.> > >>
> > 2.After user clicks the search button, the server will get all the> > >
objects(like all the films which the user wanna.). Then when user> > > clicks
different page number, the server will just return the data> > > from memory.
This seems to reduce the DB access times.> > >> > > 3. Use some preload method
to store the data for the next few pages in> > > a buffer.> > >> > > Which
solution will achieve a fast search and reduce the access load> > > to the DB?>
> >> > > Thanks a lot for your feedback!> > >> > > Li, Ke (Licco)> > >> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------> > > To
unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > >> >> > --> > View this message in context:> >
http://www.nabble.com/Pagination-Questions-tp20744884p20749894.html> > Sent
from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.> >> >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------> > To
unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > > -- > Best Regards,> Licco
_________________________________________________________________
Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_access_112008
