From: MM on
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:00:45 -0500, dpb <none(a)> wrote:

>MM wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:20:14 -0500, dpb <none(a)> wrote:
>> This is nonsense. I can spot patterns in half a million rows
>> easy-peasy just by scrolling through the grid
>Only if the pattern is contained in a sufficiently adjacent set of data
>that you can see it in close enough proximity to remember it...that's
>the point. And, if it is, then you only need a very much smaller subset
>of the data in the grid at any one time.

How do I know what subset I need before seeing all the data first?

>> There are many ways to address your apparent problems. You could apply
>> a bookmark to mark certain rows or ranges of rows then do a sort to
>> bring the marked rows to the top. You could select a bunch of rows and
>> transfer them to another grid. You could filter out rows based on
>> certain criteria. Finally, you can of course simply re-run the query
>> underlying the recordset but with different criteria, having seen the
>> results you got. But please don't tie me up in dogma so that I cannot
>> obtain a complete overview of my data simply because this offends your
>> particular design principles! That way is far too restrictive, as is
>> your claim that "_NOBODY_" can do certain things. You cannot possibly
>> know what everyone is capable of.
>Well, it would defy the results of all studies that have been done on
>human cognizance/recall if you could find _anybody_ who could retain
>several hundred thousand data items in their recollection at any one time...

It has nothing to do with recollection like some Mr Memory game. I
peruse the list, build up a picture, maybe revise the SQL, or filter
or merge or whatever. You do seem to have a very rigid approach, I
might say...

>All your arguments above reduce to having smaller subsets of data at
>which one looks; that's again all anybody here is saying is that since
>that has to be done anyway, there's nothing _really_ lost by the data
>not all being in a single display control at one time.

You can't get an overview of the data without seeing it!

>The user, unless intimately familiar w/ the data set, certainly isn't
>going to be able to find what the range of any particular value in a
>dataset is if it is unordered by scrolling thru entries manually from
>top to bottom trying to make sure they find the largest and don't miss a
>bigger one on the way down meanwhile the same thing for smallers and any
>other corollary variables they're interested in. It just isn't
>feasible. In the end, you have to make all these other entry methods to
>be practical you've enumerated so there really is no point in having
>every single datapoint in a single view.

Who said it's unordered? Of course it's ordered! Plus I can re-order
(=sort) each column using the vsFlexGrid's ExplorerBar.

>It's no different than the oft-heard complaint that a long time series
>takes an excessive amount of time to plot/display -- well, if one has an
>hour of data at 100 kHz, it doesn't matter what the resolution of the
>device, there's no point in plotting 360M points; there's no device that
>has that many pixels, anyway. So, either decimate (wisely) to show the
>overall waveform or subset time intervals, don't insist on drawing every
>stinkin' measured value every bloody time.
>I'm killing this thread; I'm bored talking to walls/posts...

Ooh, miaow!

From: Kevin Provance on

"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)> wrote in message
: MM <kylix_is(a)> wrote:
: Why does that make it buggy? It's a practical limitation. No human can
: possibly process 64k of records, let along the amount you're trying to do.

Actually, Mr. perfect-command-of-the-English-language, it's "let alone", not
"let along".

I guess you aren't as perfect as you want everyone to believe. Remember
that the next time you feel the need to correct someone else, eh?

Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT
Free usenet access at
ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

Bawwk! Paulie want a dingleball, bawwk!

From: Kevin Provance on
"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)> wrote in message
: MM <kylix_is(a)> wrote:
: It's just laziness. Instead of writing code to sub-select out of the
: recordset you're just taking the easy way out. A good coder considers the
: user, not the ease of writing the code.

Actually, a good coders knows how to write his own code, versus asking
others on usenet to find it (or write it) for him. That's also a sign of
laziness. But you already know this. <g>

: I have a database listing upwards of 100,000 songs.

Do you want a cookie, or the lot of us to bow down and kiss your unwashed
feet? I think you'll get neither. No one is impressed with a code leech.

Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT
Free usenet access at
ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

Bawwk! Paulie want a dingleball, bawwk!