Thank all for educating. It need RDBMS to solve this problem. It has been solved. :-)
David Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes.
For Oracle, the select would be like this: (example from Troels Arvin)
| SELECT * FROM (
SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY key *ASC*) AS rn,
columns
FROM tablename
)
WHERE rn > skip AND rn <= (n+skip)
Troels has a really useful comparison/how-to page at
http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/#legend
|Dave wrote:
> Does Oracle support returning a subset of a result set? for example,
> from record 50 - 100.
> That would solve memory issues.
>
> */[EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:
>
> I totally see the purpose of coding the SQL so that you would get
> only a subset of the data at a time (Oracle gives what you pointed
> out. SQL Server, as far as i know does not offer such
> functionality out of the box) . However, once you throw sorting
> data in the game, isn't it much more complicated to handle and
> might actually make you run more queries than required if you deal
> with the subset/ordering in your backing bean?
>
> I'm not actually sure here, I'm just wondering how you would
> handle sorting and using subsets in that case... It's an
> interesting dicussion though as many people are either going
> through this, or will go through it when developping their
> applications.
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Haynes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Fri 9/9/2005 8:32 PM
> *To:* MyFaces Discussion
> *Cc:*
> *Subject:* Re: dataTable - Millions of records
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
