If you were taking the route of a cached query then yes/no that you are wrong. If the count() is going to change based upon the where clause then you would have to have a single master cached query that pulled out everything possibly needed so that you could then do QoQ on that for the dynamic where clauses. That means that your master cached query is not pulling a count() and would probably be massive in space. I think it would be best to pursue solutions through the DB to speed things up.
On 3/17/06, Jeremy Bunton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah I thought about that also, but since all my queries, regardless of > the > ever changing where clause only return a count, never a full record set, I > would think that the memory usage would be small or am I wrong? This > machine > sql 2005 has 4 gig of ram, but the data as a .csv was over 8 gig so I know > I > can't fit the whole record set in ram. > > Jeremy > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:235623 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
