On 12/07/12 16:15, Dave Laansma wrote: > I'm puzzled by '... doesn't care ...' terminology. Of course it 'cares' > about pointers, it still has to get to the end of the 'string' one way > or another.
Except that a string, as far as I am aware, uses the "pascal method" I think it's called - namely a string is stored as its length followed by the string (or a Hollerith string as I used to do in FORTRAN). > > So, the question then is, does concatenation := establish and append to > a 'string' faster than <-1>? Very much so > > And if so, why doesn't the database use the same logic for <-1> as it > does for := since technically they're accomplishing the same thing? > Because it's doing it in a completely different way. The <-1> logic "just happens to work" whereas the append logic was designed to work that way. If you use a field number, the code searches for that field - I think it takes the field as a counter, and searches the string decrementing the counter every time it hits a field mark. When the counter hits zero it's found what it's looking for. Of course, if you start at -1, it never hits zero and ends up at the end of the string. But this is by accident not design. To do what you suggest would require special case code which doesn't - logically - belong there. > Sincerely, > David Laansma > IT Manager > Hubbard Supply Co. > Direct: 810-342-7143 > Office: 810-234-8681 > Fax: 810-234-6142 > www.hubbardsupply.com > "Delivering Products, Services and Innovative Solutions" > Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
