Issue 12478 - error in read al register
Summary: error in read al register
Status: CLOSED NOT_AN_OOO_ISSUE
Alias: None
Product: Base
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: 643
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Frank Schönheit
QA Contact: issues@dba
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-03-19 15:52 UTC by marting
Modified: 2006-05-31 14:29 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
error in read al register (7.34 KB, image/png)
2003-03-19 15:52 UTC, marting
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description marting 2003-03-19 15:52:03 UTC
dears,

look this 'error read all registers in database'
really, i have a 121 registers in my BD (MySQL via ODBC)

im think... this only read the 'first page'...

regards,
marting
Comment 1 marting 2003-03-19 15:52:41 UTC
Created attachment 5161 [details]
error in read al register
Comment 2 Frank Schönheit 2003-03-19 16:37:17 UTC
martin, I suppose you're referring to the record number, which is
shown as "15 *"?

This is no bug: For databases, it is simply impossible to know how
many records a table/query contains without _visiting_ all these
records (You could do guesses, but never an accurate number).
But, because visiting all records is potentially expensive (for all of
them, a small amount of data must be cached by OOo), OOo does _not_
visit all records, but only travel a little bit further than what is
actually needed.

This means that in your example, 6 and a half record are visible, so 7
records are needed at least. So OOo visits all records up to the 15th.
When you travel further, you will see that the number of records
increases, because OOo then _knows_ them.

The "*" sign behind the record number is telling you exactly this: The
number is only a "lower limit" currently, because not all records have
been visited, yet. Once they _have_, the "*" will vanish, thus
indicating that the record number now is correct.
Comment 3 marc.neumann 2003-03-21 10:07:30 UTC
close this issue, if there is still a problem please open the issue again.
Comment 4 hans_werner67 2004-02-02 12:51:33 UTC
change subcomponent to 'none'