total number of matched results

[Aurelien Stebe]

I remember talking about it briefly too. Kevin's right saying its use is 
limited to informing the user. That's why I would be in favor of it, 
only if it's really easy to implement. I think that with RDBMS (at least 
mine) it is easy and not at all time/memory consuming. JDBC gives that 
total number of rows returned, or a "COUNT(id)" query could be done.
I am not familiar with XMLDBs, so I don't know if a "COUNT(id)" query 
would actually fill the memory with the records or just return the 
value, or even if it's possible.

Cheers,
Aurelien

Kevin Benson wrote:
> Well I remember talking about it, and I do think people liked the 
> idea, buts its only real use is simply to tell the user how many total 
> records was in the query.  Currently there is a more, numberReturned, 
> and from attributes.
>
> But I should note I am not in favor of it much.  If you think of 
> Relational db's and XMLDB's I would rather write a query that gets to 
> a limit like "100" (or actually 101 and strip off the last Resource 
> Record). And tell the user that there is more with the more="true" 
> attribute. Like we have now.  Instead of doing a huge query to be put 
> in memory only to populate one attribute of somehting like
> count="8000" and return back my limit of 100 resources.  So I would 
> vote to leave it out or possibly make it optional in which case I 
> won't ever care to return it because I don't want to query no 8000 
> resources just to populate the attribute.  So I can go for optional, 
> but would not like to make it required.
>
> What are your thoughts.
>
> Well I have to start going back to London from NewCastle, so logging 
> off for some hours.
>
> cheers,
> Kevin
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Ray Plante wrote:
>
>> Hey Kevin et al.,
>>
>> For the search ops, did we talk in Victoria about adding a "count"
>> attribute to VOResources that gives the total number of matched records?
>> I did not see this in the notes.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ray
>>
>>
>>