"D. Dante Lorenso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Any thoughts? Sure, the PHP function I'm using above 'works', but is it > the most efficient? I hope I'm not actually pulling all 100,000 records > across the wire when I only intend to show 10 at a time. See what I'm > getting at?
I tend to do it using a separate select count(*). My thinking is that the count(*) query can be simplified and exclude things like the ORDER BY clause and any select list entries that require extra work. It can often even exclude whole joins. By doing a separate query I can do that extra work only for the rows that i actually need for display. Hopefully using an index to pull up those rows. And do the count(*) in the most efficient way possible, probably a sequential scan with no joins for foreign keys etc. But I suspect the two methods both work out to suck about equally. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
