> There is no way to know about
> row number efficiently.

Just wonder, why can't databases keep track internally of the count of
table rows, so getting the number of rows would be instant.
Of course there would be some overhead in doing that, but I can't imagine
it is much.

RBS

> Daniel Albuschat wrote:
>> - None I have seen so far give an indication of how many datasets
>> exist in the result set (i.e. by sizing the scroll-bar appropriately).
>
> I'd rather use the word 'records' because 'dataset' means the same thing
> as 'result set'.
>
>> Even database-managers that should be very sophisticated in this task,
>> often fail in this regard.
>
> This is because 'select count()' is slow in most cases. There is no way
> to know about row number efficiently.
>
>
> --
> Milan Babuskov
> http://www.flamerobin.org
> http://www.guacosoft.com
>
>