I agree that this would be useful. I know that I have a lot of cases where I have to list(select( and it would be nice to be able to skip that step in a lot of cases.
On Sep 25, 4:02 am, Tzury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why not just do: > > > results = list(select(...)) in those few cases where you want to have all > > the items in any order? > > I guess my example was bad. > > Here is a better one: (real world) case of a result set, which contain > 262144 records. > In that case what I do is caching the list(select), and adding > pagination mechanism at client side. > > While web.select takes no time, > Calling list(select(...)) means running over all the records just for > casting itterBetter to list. > > On new powerful laptop just list(select)) takes about 10 seconds!! > > Whereas end user may only use first 2 or 3 pages. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web.py" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/webpy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
