Well, that is kind of a weighted test then, since using Count() + data
verses RecordCount + data, you are really just adding Count(), since the
data and RecordCount is given with both of those.
Justin Kidman
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: count() or recordcount
In my situation, I needed the data anyway, so the comparison was
Count() + data versus RecordCount + data.
Kevin
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/06/00 01:01PM >>>
> I tested this using CF 4.01 using a 9000+ record Access database.
> Using Query.RecordCount was actually about 10-20% faster.
The thing is that Query.RecordCount requires the db server to pull data
out
of the database and clog up the lan between it and cf server. Do that
on a
busy production server on the application.cfm file, etc and you're
going to
notice the performance degradation.
A simple count(*) or preferably count(field) put less resource load on
the
overall server/lan.
--min
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
