On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:48:33 -0700 in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Micah Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a note, on your query comments, although I'm not arguing with your > basic point, it's always been my understanding that SELECT statements that > use '*' instead of stating field names are slower. If you don't specify the > field names the database has to spend time figuring out what they are, but > if you name them all it has to do it error if it can't find the name.
Probably depends on the implementation. But if you're looking for a speed up there, you're probably barking up the wrong tree. You're better off trying to optimize away a call to the database. Any decent database will already have the column descriptions cached anyway. But even worse, select * can be a maintence nightmare. Unless your program is getting back the rows as name value pairs and picking through what gets sent back, you want to be specifying the columns and the order that they are to be sent back, not asking for everything and assuming that the order and number of the fields is what you think might be there. (because someone like me be implementing that table as a view, or adding columns for my use, or something like that. ) eric
