Re: Problems with SELECT *

"Pablo Sanchez" <pablo_at_dev.null> wrote in message news:Xns933E76B29DEA0pingottpingottbah_at_216.166.71.233...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in
> news:7Cpca.44$lE4.5312631_at_mantis.golden.net:
>
> > "Pablo Sanchez" <pablo_at_dev.null> wrote in message
> > news:Xns933E6690CA881pingottpingottbah_at_216.166.71.233...
> >> "Gianluca Hotz" <ghotz_at_alphasys.it> wrote in news:b4skjr$237et0$1_at_ID-
> >> 184953.news.dfncis.de:
> >>
> >> > Another thing is that some system, provided there's an index,
> >> > may "cover" the query fetching densely populated index pages
> >> > instead of fetching the data pages.
> >>
> >> It's unwise for application solutions to rely on 'piggybacking' off of
> >> indexes. If you can get away with it, that's great but I wouldn't
> >> bank on it, it's too fragile of a solution.
> >
> > He never recommended that applications rely on this.
>
> Agreed and I wasn't meaning to imply that.
>
> > He suggested that writing applications to explicitly request the
> > data they need will sometimes allow this optimization. Using "SELECT
> > *" indiscriminately will generally prohibit it.
>
> Yup, that's what I understood. I was still answering in the context
> of the original poster (imagine that on this NG?! <g>).

Why, then, did you cut the prior context from the post? And how does the context of the original poster suggest anything about application reliance on indexes? I don't see that anyone in the entire thread suggested anything about reliance on indexes. Received on Fri Mar 14 2003 - 19:48:09 CET