Subject Re: [IBO] RecordCount
Author Jason Wharton
I like the thoughts about the code completion. Pretty clever...

I'm already feeling a little guilty over property/method/event bloat in the
components so I may pass on the idea, bit it is some things I would not have
considered that are noteworthy.

Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane van de Vorstenbosch" <shanevan@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [IBO] RecordCount

> If you do change the field, my recommendation is to change the names to
> "RecordCountTotal" and "RecordCountInBuffer". That way when a person does
> use the RecordCount function, they will then automatically find the other
> two functions with the autocomplete feature.
> There is nothing worse than trying to find a related function where the
> start of the name has changed. It means that it has moved in the
> alphabetical list of functions/properties, in the help file and in the
> completion.
> One other suggestion would be to also put in a RecordCountNotZero. It
> appear to me that the two most common uses for the RecordCount is to loop
> through the records or to test to ensure that the query returned some
> It would simply return the negated IsEmpty function, but with the benefit
> that it appears when the programmer is looking for the RecordCount
> Dropping the function, however, means that some people can not migrate
> easily to IBObjects. I agree, however, that it means that they will also
> forced to fix their code.
> Best regards,
> Shane
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aage Johansen" <aagjohan@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:30 AM
> Subject: [IBO] RecordCount
> > Maybe the best solution for the RecordCount problems would be to remove
> > rename the RecordCount feature. And, I'm not kidding.
> > 1. During conversion of a BDE project you will get error messages so you
> > will have to fix the problem.
> > 2. You should avoid the RecordCount like the plague, and if you really
> need
> > an estimate of <number of records> you do a 'select count ...'. When
> > use a where clause (just counting a small part of the table) performance
> > will probably be tolerable. Give your users a choice: great performance
> or
> > not-so-great performance. Or, just say no! to <number of records> ...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aage J.