On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 14:48:41 +0200, you wrote:
>It is of course a performance improvement if it uses only 1 SQL statement
>rather than N+1 with N being the number of columns reported. E.g. if you
>list all columns of all tables in a big database, this would be a huge win.
I think that can only be decided by measurement.
What you're saying is:
1 * c1 < (N + 1) * c2
but that can only be decided if we know c1 and c2 (meaning: the
execution times of two different queries, including round trip
overhead).
That doesn't mean I'm opposed to the change, on the contrary. As
a rule, I find a complex SQL statement more elegant than the
same 'algorithm' in procedural code. But in this case I wasn't
sure how to construct it.
Regards,
René Pijlman <rene@lab.applinet.nl>
