"Judah Reeves" <JReeves@Xayax.com> wrote:
>Better yet, insert a "set nocount on" for all sprocs. Most of the time

>are not even going to need to use the count of the rows affected. This,
>by the way, also gives you a slight performance boost and reduced network

based on this thread of discussion, i am not clear about the following .
say i have a stored procedure
like this

select statement 1
select statemtnt 2
select statement 3

from ado, if i do cn.execute .. i can get only the results of the first select
statement.. To get the results of the select statement 3, i need to do the
rs.open -gets results of select statement 1
rs.nextrecordset -gets results of select statement 2
rs.nextrecordset- gets results of select statement 3

but say that the stored proc is like follows
update statement 1
select statement 1
update statement 2
select statement 2

in the above case i need rs.open and one rs.nextrecordset statements in vb
to get the results of the 2nd select statement

Are you saying that if i use set nocount on, i dont have to call
rs.nextrecordset ? .