>>Wouldn't this make the first query even faster as it's not returning x records, it's only returning ONE record and then you can reference TotalCount.TheCount instead of .recordcount the other way? It seems this would make it even more efficient.
I may be wrong, and unless NULL values make a difference, I do not think count(*) or count() or count(ID) or count(anyThing) can make any difference. The query has to return the number of records in the table anyway, and for this, any decent database sytem will get this value directly without having to read the records from the table. And the number of columns and records doesn't matter. Even dBase and Clipper were able to do this. -- _______________________________________ REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:217069 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
