From: "Dimitry Sibiryakov" <sd@...>

>> Well, I can imagine a few situations right now. But the most important
>> argument for making "count()" to work faster, is: because in the most
>> popular databases engines it works faster; and, because "count()" works
>> faster in other databases engines, programers are using it, even when
>> it is crazy to do that.
>
> To hell other DBMSs. If some idiotic programmers used to
> amputate tonsils though ass, is it our problem? Do we really should
> comply with every perverted request? What can Firebird gain from it?
> Nothing! So, why anybody should care about how it is done in other
> DBMS?.. Everybody who disagree, can go to MS SQL and f...k/use it in any
> way he likes to!
>

Dimitry,

No need to piss people off. Firebird is a great database engine and I have
absolutely no problems with it. As I said in my reply to Dany, using "select
count" has it's place. It is neither useless nor evil.

What I didn't say, FWIW, is that I have never had any problems getting
counts within a few seconds at a maximum. The only time it takes longer is
with my own stupidity and an ill-formed query.

But please, do not discount nor alienate those of us who use it legitimately
because there is no other way to get the information needed.

Woody (TMW)