Re: limiting result set size

Maybe I didn't explain clearly enough. I plan to have each application running on a separate machine, so the idea is that I will achieve some performance gain by slicing up the problem and distributing the processing.

I have come across the ROWNUM pseudocolumn. I will experiment with that, but it seems that might help limit the number of rows returned with each request, if I can structure the query such that no two applications are getting duplicate rows.

If it still sounds like a bad idea, let me know why. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

Matt

Paul de Anguera wrote:

> In article <38CC09AC.C8488141_at_home.com>, Matt
> Brown <mbrown1_at_home.com> wrote:
> >Each application will need to execute a query or call a stored procedure
> >to get a set of rows to work on. What's the best way to accomplish
> >this?...
> The trouble with parallel processing is that you
> become CPU-bound unless you have lots of
> processors. I'd consider it only if the threads
> need to do some more I-O, so the CPU can run some
> threads while others are waiting for I-O.
> Otherwise you're just cutting the problem into
> smaller pieces and getting more overhead and
> complexity for your trouble.
>
> Paul de Anguera | "You can't write a chord ugly enough to say
> Reply to: | what you want to say sometimes, so you have to
> deanguer@ | rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
> quidnunc.net | - Frank Zappa
Received on Mon Mar 13 2000 - 00:00:00 CST