Yeah, your logic makes sense, but when you learn of this way it really works it's really cool stuff. And it's indeed not well documented. That's why, when something like that comes up, I jump on it to not only offer a correction but elaboration as well. The feature is really powerful, if used correctly.
/charlie -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Keleher Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 5:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFTALKTor] CF cachedwithin question > But when each of you indicate that a changed set of SQL will "replace" > (Bob's words) or "purge" (the book's words) the previously cached query, > that's a mistaken assertion. > > The new SQL will simply create a new instance of a cached result. Thank you Charlie. It never occured to me that there could be multiple instances of the same query (I don't think the documentation makes that clear). But thinking about it, yes, that makes a lot of sense. I have this mental image of a queries name and other attributes and its SQL being concatenated to form a key - if the key exists, use the associated results, otherwise create a new instance. - You are subscribed to the CFUGToronto CFTALK ListSRV. This message has been posted by: "Bob Keleher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe, Please Visit and Login to http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ Manager: Kevin Towes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ This System has been donated by Infopreneur, Inc. (http://www.infopreneur.net) - You are subscribed to the CFUGToronto CFTALK ListSRV. This message has been posted by: "charles arehart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe, Please Visit and Login to http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ Manager: Kevin Towes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ This System has been donated by Infopreneur, Inc. (http://www.infopreneur.net)
