Re: record count -1
- From: "Dmitriy Antonov" <antonovdima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:32:08 -0400
"Ralph" <nt_consulting64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0p-dnfPpmsSd_3LZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dmitriy Antonov" <antonovdima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:erWvYhHyGHA.4044@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Terry Kreft" <terry.kreft@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OJSEqcHyGHA.2168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Recordcount is not going to reliably return the count of records.
I don't think it is true. It may not return any count at all, like in the
case with OP, but if it, indeed, returns some value greater than -1,
then
it must be reliable (at least, I never heard about problems with
incorrect
counting and never had such problems in my experience).
Dmitriy.
You touch on an interesting bit of Data Access history. (to me anyway) In
earlier days there was such a wide variety of providers, library versions,
and a general lack of understanding of the different cursors types. There
was even a reported 'bug' in some ODBC driver that it returned an erronous
recordcount, though I am not sure it was ever really tracked down.
I wasn't working as a programmer at that time - hence my "confidence" in
this property's behavior :-)
Dmitriy.
.
- References:
- Re: record count -1
- From: Terry Kreft
- Re: record count -1
- From: Dmitriy Antonov
- Re: record count -1
- From: Ralph
- Re: record count -1
- Prev by Date: Re: record count -1
- Next by Date: Re: record count -1
- Previous by thread: Re: record count -1
- Next by thread: Re: record count -1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|