doesn't that cause two queries? I used to do it that way and cut my time
substantially by counting in-line. Even though the results were cached
it still took more time. Also since the tables is constantly be updated
the returned total would not always match the number of results on the
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 14:26 -0600, Dave Held wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeremiah Jahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:15 PM
> > To: John A Meinel
> > Cc: postgres performance
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] name search query speed
> > [...]
> > So the count for this is generated on the fly needed for
> > pagination in the app which expresses the total number of
> > finds, but only displays 40 of them. If any one knows a way
> > to determine the total number of matches without needing to
> > iterate through them using jdbc, I'm all ears as this would
> > save me huge amounts of time and limit/offset would become
> > an option.
> Is there a reason you can't do a count(field) query first? If
> so, you can get the number of records returned by setting
> absolute(-1) and getting the row number.
> David B. Held
> Software Engineer/Array Services Group
> 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377
> 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129
"A power so great, it can only be used for Good or Evil!"
-- Firesign Theatre, "The Giant Rat of Summatra"
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?