On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:16:02 -0700, Brian Aker <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd unpack the row by using the Field object and not go with the > offset (longterm we won't support touching the record[] directly since > it creates a big problem for abstraction). Via val_ methods you can > request the individual members. The offset was originally added so > that two sets of field objects would be needed (aka one for recored[0] > and one for record[1]). Our cost for building this stuff is pretty low > so we can just give folks a set of fields for both images so that you > aren't stuck trying to figure out the underlying contents.
I want to go in the direction of an abstract Tuple class that engines could provide (e.g. the embedded_innodb one would wrap ib_col_get_value() and the like) so we don't have to carry around a giant record buffer (well, two of them) the whole time, we could just use something sized appropriately for whatever queries we're executing. I use some tricks in embedded_innodb with the String class to get at things like varchar columns without copying the field or poking around at the field internals.... but it's pretty ugly. (rather looking forward to cleaning all this crud up) -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~pbxt-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~pbxt-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
