Re: Problems with SELECT *

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in news:HXpca.47$yF4.5361724_at_mantis.golden.net:

> Why, then, did you cut the prior context from the post?

I believe that people should use their news readers and news as it was designed to be used: cut out the relevant pieces and if someone wants to walk up the parent thread, they can do so. Think of it as a form of removing redundant data.

> And how does the context of the original poster suggest anything
> about application reliance on indexes?

Interesting, that's not what I intended to write and when I re-read what I wrote, I can see how it could have been misperceived:

  A gentle reminder, the original poster was stating the reasons why   to avoid 'select *' and putting down the above reason is a good   reason but I don't think it's paramount. My vote is to avoid it but   primarily because people's times are more expensive than machine.

I should have put a 'comma' after the 'select *' to force the break between the OP and the other person's point on piggybacking.

> I don't see that anyone in the entire thread suggested anything
> about reliance on indexes.

Exactly and that's why I was talking about the intention of the original poster who has a list of reasons. I wouldn't put piggybacking as a key item in the list, more of an ancillary point.

Also, why are you so aggressive? Is this simply your writing style or are you just angry for some reason?

-- 
Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
http://www.hpdbe.com