My apologies, I didnt read through the entire question before inserting my
foot...
your question was on a much higher level than I first assumed.
"greg bates" <webmaster_at_gregbates.com> wrote in message
news:0KXy4.7685$zU2.3316311_at_paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> 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
