Re: Navigation question
Date: 16 Feb 2007 10:11:40 -0800
Message-ID: <1171649500.575646.26410_at_s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 16, 10:48 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:34 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:48 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Only a second to scan before heading out, but it appears that you are
> > still thinking I'm splitting queries and making more round trips and I
> > am not. Please re-read the example you gave and the one I gave. They
> > have the same number of queries. How many times do I have to say that
> > I am not, not, not, absolutely not suggesting that we do more round
> > trips or split queries. Can you point me to where I have apparently
> > mistakenly suggested such at thing? --dawn
>
> Would you be willing to acknowledge that in the real-world
> case I've described the navigational approach is vastly
> slower?
>
> Marshall
Yes, yes, absolutely, but from my perspective that has nothing to do with it being "navigational" but in taking more round-trips.
Do you agree that navigating is not inherently a bad thing? --dawn Received on Fri Feb 16 2007 - 19:11:40 CET