![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » DBISAM Technical Support » Support Forums » DBISAM Client/Server » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 8 of 8 total |
![]() |
Mon, Nov 6 2006 1:08 PM | Permanent Link |
"Glynn Owen" | In a TDBISAMQuery that I'm using, setting the MaxRowCount does not seem
to have any effect. Regardless of what this setting may be, the same number of rows is returned. Any ideas about what I'm missing here? TIA, Glynn -- http://realthinclient.com |
Mon, Nov 6 2006 1:38 PM | Permanent Link |
Jason Lee | Do you have a DISTINCT, GROUP BY, or ORDER BY in the select statement?
From the manual: This property does not respect any DISTINCT, GROUP BY, or ORDER BY claues in the SQL statement. It is primarily useful for making sure that end users do not accidentally construct SQL queries that generate cartesian products or other types of queries that can cause the number of rows to be returned to be enormous. ~Jason Lee Glynn Owen wrote: > In a TDBISAMQuery that I'm using, setting the MaxRowCount does not seem > to have any effect. Regardless of what this setting may be, the same > number of rows is returned. > > Any ideas about what I'm missing here? > > TIA, > Glynn > |
Mon, Nov 6 2006 11:21 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Glynn,
<< In a TDBISAMQuery that I'm using, setting the MaxRowCount does not seem to have any effect. Regardless of what this setting may be, the same number of rows is returned. Any ideas about what I'm missing here? >> What Jason said. In fact, from now on, all of my answers will simply be "What Jason said". ![]() -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Tue, Nov 7 2006 12:17 AM | Permanent Link |
Jason Lee | Hey, I'm just trying to earn a DBISAM mug
![]() > What Jason said. In fact, from now on, all of my answers will simply be > "What Jason said". ![]() |
Tue, Nov 7 2006 2:03 PM | Permanent Link |
"Glynn Owen" | Jason Lee wrote:
> Do you have a DISTINCT, GROUP BY, or ORDER BY in the select statement? > > From the manual: > This property does not respect any DISTINCT, GROUP BY, or ORDER BY > claues in the SQL statement. It is primarily useful for making sure > that end users do not accidentally construct SQL queries that > generate cartesian products or other types of queries that can cause > the number of rows to be returned to be enormous. > > > ~Jason Lee > > Glynn Owen wrote: > > In a TDBISAMQuery that I'm using, setting the MaxRowCount does not > > seem to have any effect. Regardless of what this setting may be, > > the same number of rows is returned. > > > > Any ideas about what I'm missing here? > > > > TIA, > > Glynn > > Thanks, Jason. I did have an ORDER BY clause, so I removed it, and sure enough - it worked. Then I wondered what it means to "not respect" such a clause, so I put it back in. It still works. So I haven't learned anything by this, but at least it works now. Must have been Gremlins. < ![]() Glynn -- http://realthinclient.com |
Tue, Nov 7 2006 4:55 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Jason,
<< Hey, I'm just trying to earn a DBISAM mug ![]() I'll get one in the mail for you - you've earned it. ![]() -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Tue, Nov 7 2006 4:57 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Glynn,
<< Thanks, Jason. I did have an ORDER BY clause, so I removed it, and sure enough - it worked. Then I wondered what it means to "not respect" such a clause, so I put it back in. It still works. >> I should still work with and ORDER BY, however, by not "respecting" the ORDER BY DBISAM is essentially stopping the processing of rows at the max row count setting irrespective of whether the rows currently present constitute the top X rows according to the ORDER BY. IOW, using the max row count when there is an ORDER BY clause does not cause the same results as using the TOP clause with an ORDER BY clause. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Tue, Nov 7 2006 9:23 PM | Permanent Link |
"Glynn Owen" | Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:
> Glynn, > > << Thanks, Jason. I did have an ORDER BY clause, so I removed it, and > sure enough - it worked. Then I wondered what it means to "not > respect" such a clause, so I put it back in. It still works. >> > > I should still work with and ORDER BY, however, by not "respecting" > the ORDER BY DBISAM is essentially stopping the processing of rows at > the max row count setting irrespective of whether the rows currently > present constitute the top X rows according to the ORDER BY. IOW, > using the max row count when there is an ORDER BY clause does not > cause the same results as using the TOP clause with an ORDER BY > clause. I see what you mean. There is no reason to think that the top 100 from an unordered list would be anything like the top 100 of that same list after it was ordered. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try that new-fangled TOP clause instead, since that's more in line with what I'm trying to achieve. Regards, Glynn -- http://realthinclient.com |
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 07:31 PM | Privacy Policy![]() © 2024 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? ![]() |