Row count problem

[Hari]

Changing the data type from Integer to Long could be one solution (if the
table is too large).
The idea of looping through the recordset to increment a counter (as suggested
by someone in this forum), SHOULD BE AVOIDED - it is a very ineffecient
way of doing it.

[Michael Culley]

Um, to whom where you replying?

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"Hari" <rhariharan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d3e446f$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Changing the data type from Integer to Long could be one solution (if the
> table is too large).
> The idea of looping through the recordset to increment a counter (as
suggested
> by someone in this forum), SHOULD BE AVOIDED - it is a very ineffecient
> way of doing it.
>

[JB]

"Hari" <rhariharan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Changing the data type from Integer to Long could be one solution (if the
>table is too large).
>The idea of looping through the recordset to increment a counter (as suggested
>by someone in this forum), SHOULD BE AVOIDED - it is a very ineffecient
>way of doing it.
>
'****************************************
Your saying it should be avoided...??? Depending on the size of the database
it doesn't seem like a bad idea. Just messing around I didn't see a noticable
difference in time when doing it a couple different ways? When saying "SHOULD
BE AVOIDED" you should tell the us why you think that! If interested in
knowing what you and others think the best/better way is.

Thanks...

jb

[Michael Culley]

I agree that it doesn't have to be avoided in all situations, but in most it
is very easy to avoid. I would say the best method would be to execute a
"Select Count(*) FROM MyTable"

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"JB" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3d3e9520$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> "Hari" <rhariharan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Changing the data type from Integer to Long could be one solution (if the
> >table is too large).
> >The idea of looping through the recordset to increment a counter (as
suggested
> >by someone in this forum), SHOULD BE AVOIDED - it is a very ineffecient
> >way of doing it.
> >
> '****************************************
> Your saying it should be avoided...??? Depending on the size of the
database
> it doesn't seem like a bad idea. Just messing around I didn't see a
noticable
> difference in time when doing it a couple different ways? When saying
"SHOULD
> BE AVOIDED" you should tell the us why you think that! If interested in
> knowing what you and others think the best/better way is.
>
> Thanks...
>
> jb