Re: Re: A more elegant solution?

D'oh. *slaps forehead*

Another classic case of focusing on one solution, so the other one that is staring you in the face gets ignored.

But, these hashes will not have a fixed number of elements; do I need to put a string of ?, ?, ... , ? in my statement and then just pass a list through execute? Or is there some placeholder that says "put a list here"?

Comment on Re: Re: A more elegant solution? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: A more elegant solution? by runrig (Abbot) on Aug 20, 2001 at 02:17 UTC
But, these hashes will not have a fixed number of elements; do I need to put a string of ?, ?, ... , ? in my statement and then just pass a list through execute? Or is there some placeholder that says "put a list here"? Well, if there is not an unholy number of combinations of columns, then this is not a bad solution. If there is going to be a large number of 'different' statements prepared, then this is still ok, but I would just use prepare() instead of prepare_cached.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: A more elegant solution?
by runrig (Abbot) on Aug 20, 2001 at 02:17 UTC

But, these hashes will not have a fixed number of elements; do I need to put a string of ?, ?, ... , ? in my statement and then just pass a list through execute? Or is there some placeholder that says "put a list here"?

Well, if there is not an unholy number of combinations of columns, then this is not a bad solution. If there is going to be a large number of 'different' statements prepared, then this is still ok, but I would just use prepare() instead of prepare_cached.

[reply]