2008/10/1 Timothy Madden <terminatorul@...>:

> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Martijn Tonies <m.tonies@...> wrote:

[snip]

>> No offence, but this only makes sense if you do a "select count(*) from
>> table".
>>

[snip]

>> Why go through all this trouble for something that is, per transaction,
>> hardly in use?
>
> Well, the OP seems to want his tables displayed in some grid control,
> which needs a scroll bar, and someone else reported an 8 milion rows
> table needs about 12s to get the row count.

No, the OP wants his result set from an arbitrary select statement to
be available
to the user in the most convenient and user-friendly way.

> I believe many applications can be made to work without reading the row
> count in advance, and I would do this every time I can, but if I need the
> row count for a base table I would still expect to have it in a reasonable
> amount of time.

You totally did not get my point, though. My point is NOT letting the user wait,
but determine "in the background" how many rows there are,.
And never ever did I say anything about select count(*), because it's
very pointless.

--
eat(this); // delicious suicide