On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Stephen Moretti wrote:
On 25/01/07, Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's not a GROUP BY, that's a COUNT()... and while you have to
group to use any of the aggregate functions, it still doesn't solve
the need at hand, yanno?
Aye - I was just thinking that to some extent you do get
"grouped" data c/o iterators and a common group by/aggregate query
is to count data subsets.
Indeed! Random thoughts, random responses...
The other issue is, like you say, large recordsets would require
you to retrieve the whole dataset and then get the recordCount... a
lot of wasted operations.
Indeed.
It was just a passing thought that might provide the means to an
appropriate solution.
Yep... random thoughts, random responses. ;) I'm glad I'm not the
only one who sends the "Well here's an interesting off-the-top-of-my-
head though..." messages to lists... and my response was more of the
same, just a counterpoint to yours. :)
Stephen
J
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List
[email protected]
Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
