Message-ID: <01BE8DF1.71754C60.jbarnett@pobox.com>
From: Jon Barnett <jbarnett@pobox.com>
Reply-To: "jbarnett@pobox.com" <jbarnett@pobox.com>
To: "'Herouth Maoz'" <herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il>,
	"'pgsql-interfaces@hub.org'" <pgsql-interfaces@hub.org>
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] JDBC next() method
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:26:12 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tuesday, 20 April 1999 1:35, Herouth Maoz [SMTP:herouth@oumail.openu.ac.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.