ThanksButNo wrote:
> On Jan 19, 8:46 am, "Paul Lautman" <paul.laut...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> firewood...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:18:16 +0100, "Rik Wasmus"
>>> <luiheidsgoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "snip"
>>>> Eehm. Why does it deliver unnecessary data? You control the queries,
>>>> how come the queries don't ask for just the data they need?
>>> Well, I read somewhere that 'SELECT *' was a lot faster than naming a
>>> bunch of fields that are specific for the exact task for the moment.
>> Wherever it was you read that, make sure you don't go there again!
>
> Maybe it meant that 'SELECT *' is faster *to*code* - - - ??
>
> I mean, look, it must take HOURS to type out each of a hundred
> columns, then go back and fix typos and what-not --
>
> Now, take; 'SELECT *'
>
> BOOM, you're done! Time for a beer break!
>
> ;-)
>

BOOM. Your program just blew up because someone added a 10MB blob to
each row in the table! You're fired!

Lazy coding is seldom *good* coding.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================