------=_Part_143690_14502473.1182706569605
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 6/24/07, Shawn Hinchy <shawn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> 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
> hard
> > 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
> able
> > 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
> too hard and I was afraid that I wouldn't find one that would do
> exactly what i wanted. Then there is the concern that my needs will
> change in the future and I'll have to find and re-implement another
> module instead of just tweaking my own code. Or maybe I just like to
> go through the pain on my own. :)
>
> I think two separate queries will work fine for me now, I just didn't
> want to have to load all the results for fear it would be a memory hog
> and slow things down since searches will be frequent.
One thing people sometimes do if they have a lot of rows (a whole lot) is
to
actually keep a separate table that stores the count and then you can just
select from that. It is not recommended unless you really have a lot of
rows because it de-normalizes the database. The count() should work fine
however.
Cheers,
Thanks,
>
> Shawn
>
> --------------------
> Shawn Michael Hinchy
> shawn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-cgi-unsubscribe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-cgi-help@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://learn.perl.org/
>
>
>
--
~Tyler
------=_Part_143690_14502473.1182706569605--
|
