From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert McGinnis <fprefect(at)elite(dot)net> |
Cc: | Herb Pabst <herbie(at)nextearth(dot)com>, pgsql-list <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Best WebInterface...? |
Date: | 2001-01-30 19:10:40 |
Message-ID: | 20010130111040.T26076@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
* Robert McGinnis <fprefect(at)elite(dot)net> [010130 07:45] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if this is true, but I think php doesn't support
> > cursors, so large queiries may have to be sucked into the
> > webserver instead of processed one row at a time.
> >
> >
> I have used cursors with php for over a year. The problem is that is does
> not support them natively; any code that tests the call for pg_exec may
> fail since the return is undefined. Here's how I write the code:
> //Note this is off the top of my head, you code may vary :-)
>
[snip]
>
> Move forward and backward works as before the fetch. The part that I
> don't like is the inability to check whether the transaction block querys
> work; I had to console myself with counting the number of results I should
> get for the same query. The bad part is that there is WAY to many queries
> being executed; the good part is it save a great many lines of
> quasi-convoluted logic whilst incrementing to the n or n+1 row of an
> answer. I hope this helps,
It's nice but not as nice as having true support so that one doesn't need
to do all those redundant checks and queries.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew McMillan | 2001-01-30 19:15:33 | Re: Slow date comparison |
Previous Message | Marc Zandvliet | 2001-01-30 17:46:27 | truncated numeric data |