On 11/13/07, Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
Hallo, Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote:
Working with smaller result sets is pretty standard with SQL databases. If some query is returning billions of data, the query is wrong. A very common idiom with SQL programming is to first do a "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM x WHERE y", and then go through the result set in smaller steps using LIMIT. A Google search result page is an example for this in action.
I guess I thought you were trying to say that when you make a query, you were only expecting ONE result from every query.
Would it make sense to you to expect a result set to return 10 rows (or more), and then the SQL object (whatever the name) would then be sent a bang to get the next row set? I am assuming that the first result would be sent upon the initial return of the data from the call. This was my point of comparing this with a [textfile] object.
Mike
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev