Quoting Tyler Gee <geekout@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> On 6/24/07, Shawn Hinchy <shawn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I am getting to the point where I need to start thinking about doing
>> pagination for search results.
>>
>> I did some searches and it looks like there are some pagination
>> modules, but I am not quite interested in going that route yet. I am
>> using a handful of columns from the search so I do not think that
>> retrieving all results and then only showing a subset will be very
>> efficient. It also looks like you can execute FOUND_ROWS() after
>> doing your initial query and it will give you the total results. This
>> is probably the best route, but it is not easily implemented with the
>> way I have set up my functions.
>>
>> Are there any other options that I have missed? Suggestions?
>
>
> If you are not interested in using the modules, it is not actually that
ha=
rd
> to roll your own. In the past I have done different things for total
> counts, either two separate queries, one just a 'SELECT COUNT(*)' and
the
> other to actually fetch the data. Depending on your data you might be
abl=
e
> to add the count into your data fetching query but probably not.
>
> Why do you not want to use the modules?
Thank you Tyler, I hadn't though about just using select COUNT(*).
I was shying away from using the modules because I knew that it wasn't =20
too hard and I was afraid that I wouldn't find one that would do =20
exactly what i wanted. Then there is the concern that my needs will =20
change in the future and I'll have to find and re-implement another =20
module instead of just tweaking my own code. Or maybe I just like to =20
go through the pain on my own. :)
I think two separate queries will work fine for me now, I just didn't =20
want to have to load all the results for fear it would be a memory hog =20
and slow things down since searches will be frequent.
Thanks,
Shawn
--------------------
Shawn Michael Hinchy
shawn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
