From: | Jon Barnett <jbarnett(at)pobox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Herouth Maoz'" <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il>, "'pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org'" <pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [INTERFACES] JDBC next() method |
Date: | 1999-04-23 15:26:12 |
Message-ID: | 01BE8DF1.71754C60.jbarnett@pobox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
On Tuesday, 20 April 1999 1:35, Herouth Maoz [SMTP:herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il]
wrote:
> At 15:57 +0300 on 14/04/1999, Jon Barnett wrote:
>
>
> > I had expected that an empty result set would be
> > returned if the history table is empty (0 rows returned for the select),
> > and
> > queryResult.next() would be false. Is this an incorrect interpretation
> >on my
> > part?
>
> It is. In PostgreSQL, when an aggregate function is used, it always returns
> one row containing one field. If it had no values that matched the query,
> that one field is NULL.
The question is less one of "what is required to correctly interpret the result
from the postgresql jdbc driver" and more a case of determining whether this
result conforms to the jdbc api definitions. To re-phrase this; if I employed
a different JDBC driver, would I obtain the same result? For after all, the
goal of the JDBC layer is to provide a consistent interface, independent of the
database to which you are connecting, particularly when you can late bind the
driver (specify the driver you want to use at run-time).
Best regards,
Jon.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | JT Kirkpatrick | 1999-04-23 19:37:07 | win98 odbc problem? |
Previous Message | Burg, Edmund von der | 1999-04-23 11:24:34 | unsubscribe |