Re: limiting result set size

SELECT m.blah, m.blabbb FROM MONSTERTABLE m WHERE blah='something' and ROWNUM >=20
I know that this works to get the "TOP - N" results and this is just an educated guess but i'll bet you could sql something like

where rownum >n and rownum < x

this help any? of course, I always like to sequence at least ONE column and keep seperate variables for

the GUI and the recordset.......displayed rows are 20 - 40, but the sequence may have returned 23 -50 because of deleted rows in the table....

GREG BATES, MCP "Matt Brown" <mbrown1_at_home.com> wrote in message news:38CC09AC.C8488141_at_home.com...
> This might be a FAQ, but so far my research hasn't turned up an answer.
>
> My situation is this. I plan on having a scalable java application
> which will process rows from a table. 1..n of these applications could
> be deployed to distribute the processing.
>
> 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?
>
> Is there a way to limit the number of rows returned in a result set?
>
> Is it better to have each application invoke a SELECT...FOR UPDATE query
> (itself or via a stored procedure) or have them talk to some other
> applicaiton which is font-ending the database and doling out x number of
> rows from the total result set to each requestor??
>
> I'm assuming this isn't an uncommon problem, so there are probably good
> solutions.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
> Matt
>
Received on Mon Mar 13 2000 - 00:00:00 CST