m3rajk — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:25:33 +0000

ok. ignoring the discussion about the time difference....

eskater: i know of two that will tell you the line number and column number if you want. however they are programming editors so they do much more than php,... they also do html, js, xhtml, c, c++, java, perl, scheme, lisp, python, and a large number of others i can't remember at this time.

xemacs.com is the one i prefer. you might prefer emacs, found at gnu.org (note, this is a posix oriented site, however, even though both of these were originally posix, they both have windows ports.)

if you haven't switched to mark's suggestion of a while loop, i'd like to state that if you're checking that the number of rows is greater than 0, that's fine, but if you want to use a foreach, you need to have an array. a for loop can use the number of rows, but a foreach is on an array, not a number. that may have been your error.

mark's suggestion removes the need for the checking on the number of rows, as well as looping regaurdless

Mark Hensler — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:34:59 +0000

I think the only time differnce is a few extra low level instructions, which cannot really be timed.

Suzanne — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:10:56 +0000

lol, yes, I think I am saying that it's an equally fine choice.

mysql_fetch_row();
mysql_fetch_assoc();
mysql_fetch_array();

They all seem to do relatively the same thing, depending on what you want to have happen. You can limit mysql_fetch_array to mimic either mysql_fetch_row mysql_fetch_array($sql,MYSQL_NUM) or mysql_fetch_assoc mysql_fetch_array($sql,MYSQL_ASSOC) -- it seems that the specialized fetches came about to replace the second argument for mysql_fetch_array itself.

I don't see anything that indicates that anything is significantly slower or faster, the key word being significantly. I would assume that you can use whichever you please that works best for you and your script.

nike_guy_man — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:00:21 +0000

Suzanne I think you got kyle and i both confused here
Are you saying we should use it?
I've used it since I found out about it about a year ago.
Of course, I can't tell the difference between 1.04s and 1.2s in execution time (arbitrary numbers, no meaning)

brady.k — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:57:50 +0000

umm yea....lol

Suzanne — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:58:56 +0000

Wouldn't Kyle's script here require mysql_fetch_array, though?

Edit: hmmm... nope. Cool!

Interesting the release of the data, too.

Suzanne — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:57:18 +0000

Specifically, it seems to not do anything faster in particular, and in fact may be SLOWER... if you believe php.net, that is... http://ca2.php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-fetch-assoc.php

Interesting, though. Reading it again to understand the subtleties...

Further edit: seems that it's not significantly slower than fetching one row at a time... Hmm. That is it's a bit (maybe?) slower than http://ca2.php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-fetch-row.php ? *sigh* I'm officially confused.

nike_guy_man — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:55:23 +0000

It was a while ago, but mysql_fetch_array takes a full array and assigns all rows as $var['row'] and $var['#'] with the number being the row number
mysql_fetch_assoc takes an associative array, just $var['row']
Right?

Suzanne — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:53:06 +0000

Where would you get stats on that? I'm curious to read more about this.

nike_guy_man — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:47:24 +0000

Doesn't mysql_fetch_array use up twice the CPU required for mysql_fetch_assoc?
I only use mysql_fetch_assoc now...
I'd also suggest putting an extra \n at the end so you can see between the different entries. Either that, or put it in a table