buppcpp wrote:

>>You could have saved quite a lot of debate in this thread if you had
>>told us that from the start.
>
> Understand what I was trying to point out. I was pointing out a
> problem in the database with how it processed queries,I did ask if
> there was a problem with the query, or is there a better way to design
> my database.
>
> So when you say I could have "saved quite a lot of debate", there
> first needed to be a debate.

I've fallen in the same pit myself once or twice. I think the problem is
that it's so easy to assume that people read what you mean instead of
what you actually write.

In your case it would probably have made things a lot easier if you had
written right from the start that you're not asking for help using
Firebird, help with adapting your application to work well with
Firebird, or any other kind of help, but just want to point out a kind
of query that performs pretty badly on Firebird compared to (unnamed or
preferably named) other DB engine.

As far as I can recall, I read your original post and the impression I
got was:

- that you were considring a switch to Firebird, which turned out to be
wrong because you're not switching to Firbird. You're considering to
expand your application to support Firebird in addition to the engines
it already supports.

- that you wanted help to understand how you could make the query
perform better on Firebird. Apparently this too is wrong?

Point is: if the replies you get seem to miss your point, restate your
point as clearly as you possibly can instead of going down the track
that started out in the wrong direction.

Applies to everyong posting here, not just you (or me).

Kjell
--
--------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
Adressmarknaden AM AB
E-post: kjell.rilbe@...
Telefon: 08-761 06 55
Mobil: 0733-44 24 64