> That will be kind of tricky, won't it?

Not really, as I don't need the exact number. I have to work something out,
but suppose we have rdb$db_key that is roughly sequential

and we roughly know the distribution then we could do select 1 from table
where rdb$db_key = x if it doesn't return a result then we make

x smaller and do the same, if it did return a result then we make it bigger
etc. So, it will be a binary chop. We can stop when we are satisfied

we have a reasonable estimate of the number of rows. Not sure now if doing a
select max(rdb$db_key) from table would do roughly the same

and as fast, but the idea is to do something that is faster than doing a
select count.

I just have a feeling that something along these lines would work.



RBS



_____

From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lucas Franzen
Sent: 30 September 2008 20:03
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] What programming languages and toolkits do
you use to access Firebird?





bartsmissaert@ <mailto:bartsmissaert%40blueyonder.co.uk> blueyonder.co.uk
schrieb:

> Yes, I understand that, but it would still be
> useful to know the tota number of records in a table without having to do
> a count.

That will be kind of tricky, won't it?
You want Firebird to estimate precisely how many valid records the
current trasaction is seeing with having to count them?
Sounds like an very superb clairvoyant algorithm.

Or sth. like this - almost 40 years old:

I read the news today, oh boy,
4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all -
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall

;-)

Luc.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]