Re: Problems with SELECT *

From: Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_dev.null>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:38:04 -0600
Message-ID: <Xns933E8086A9F5Fpingottpingottbah_at_216.166.71.233>

"Bob Badour" <> wrote in news:HXpca.47$

> 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
Received on Fri Mar 14 2003 - 20:38:04 CET

Original text of this message