Re: Navigation question

On Feb 16, 1:59 pm, "TroyK" <cs_tr..._at_juno.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:12 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:16 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:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > You split a query.
>
> > No, I did not. I took your two queries and replaced them with my two
> > queries. Please re-read or point me to where I have split a query.
> > Thanks. --dawn
>
> You replaced the second of Marshall's queries with your two queries.
> You
> split it. Marshall's second query can stand on its own in order to
> obtain
> the contact information given the customer name. Neither of your two
> queries
> is sufficient on their own to obtain the same data. One query became
> two,
> hence, it was "split".
>
> TroyK

I'm having a hellofatime with this new google groups interface, so I'm not now going to cut and paste the part of the discussion that would show you that my intent was to replace the frist two of Marshall's SQL statement with two other statements. I wrote them under only his second query, so perhaps you missed that it was 2 for 2. What I missed, I think (no confirmation on it yet), is that it sounds like with jdbc, perhaps (something I was unaware of and I do not have it confirmed) you can pass multiple SQL statements where the execution plan is determined by the combination of them, rather than executing the statement sequentially.

Did this make sense? Thanks. --dawn Received on Fri Feb 16 2007 - 23:24:25 CET