Another recordset question

[Rob Meade]

Lo all,

I have a local recordset which is not linked to a database.

Some of the fields in this recordset contain html tags.

I have a function which is called when I'm calculating my relevance for
search results which gets the row from the recordset, strips out the html
tags, then does its magic to produce the 'relevance' for that row.

My problem is that when the search is carried out initially, it obviously
matches against the html aswell, after my relevance is calculated a row
could exist in my recordset with a 0 for relevance but its still in the
recordset because it was found initially.

I figure I have two options - before I dump the results to the page I could
either iterate through the recordset again, if there are any results with a
0 relevance then delete them from the recordset, or, have an if..then to see
if the relevance for that row is 0 and then NOT display it to the page.

Question :

Is it better to remove the row from the recordset then just display all -
rather than using the if...then or is it better to use the if...then and not
have to iterate through the recordset to remove all the 0 relevance rows..

Also - if I am to delete the rows from the recordset - anyone got a small
snippet of code to do that?

I'm using stuff like :

RS.AddNew
RS.Update

for this local recordset - not sure how to drop a row like this?

Any help is appreciated,

Regards

Rob

[Bob Barrows]

Re: Another recordset question

Rob Meade wrote:[color=blue]
> Lo all,
>
> I have a local recordset which is not linked to a database.
>
> Some of the fields in this recordset contain html tags.
>
> I have a function which is called when I'm calculating my relevance
> for search results which gets the row from the recordset, strips out
> the html tags, then does its magic to produce the 'relevance' for
> that row.
>
> My problem is that when the search is carried out initially, it
> obviously matches against the html aswell, after my relevance is
> calculated a row could exist in my recordset with a 0 for relevance
> but its still in the recordset because it was found initially.
>
> I figure I have two options - before I dump the results to the page I
> could either iterate through the recordset again, if there are any
> results with a 0 relevance then delete them from the recordset, or,
> have an if..then to see if the relevance for that row is 0 and then
> NOT display it to the page.
>
> Question :
>
> Is it better to remove the row from the recordset then just display
> all - rather than using the if...then or is it better to use the
> if...then and not have to iterate through the recordset to remove all
> the 0 relevance rows..[/color]


Can't answer this without testing ...
[color=blue]
>
> Also - if I am to delete the rows from the recordset - anyone got a
> small snippet of code to do that?
>
> I'm using stuff like :
>
> RS.AddNew
> RS.Update
>
> for this local recordset - not sure how to drop a row like this?[/color]

RS.Delete


Bob Barrows


--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

[Rob Meade]

Re: Another recordset question

"Bob Barrows" wrote ...
[color=blue]
> Can't answer this without testing ...[/color]

Hi Bob

No worries, I *personally* think that the If..then would be better,
otherwise I have to iterate through the entire recordset again - admittedly
only the once - but it could be huge, the If...Then is already in the main
iteration - so would make more sense....will probably go with this method
for now...
[color=blue]
> RS.Delete[/color]

doh! "Does exactly what it says on the tin" ... :o)

Cheers

Rob