Zell Posted November 9, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 53 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 412 Reputation: 266 Joined: 04/25/12 Last Seen: Tuesday at 02:08 PM Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) Why note make scripts command to fast the sql update and etc? The actual way its so depreciated. Suggestion its something or better like this: UPDATE `login` SET `level`=99 , `sex`='F' WHERE `level`> '50' Could be setsql login,level(99),sex(F),WHERE(level>50); It's juts a sample, but I think that the actual way of consult its so antiquated Edited November 9, 2014 by Zell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emistry Posted November 9, 2014 Group: Forum Moderator Topic Count: 93 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 10018 Reputation: 2369 Joined: 10/28/11 Last Seen: Thursday at 04:49 PM Share Posted November 9, 2014 I didnt see how fast does it improved ... and your method look rather more complex than the current one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zell Posted November 9, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 53 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 412 Reputation: 266 Joined: 04/25/12 Last Seen: Tuesday at 02:08 PM Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) I didnt see how fast does it improved ... and your method look rather more complex than the current one. Sorry, I changed the sample. UPDATE `login` SET `groupd_id`=99 , `sex`='F' WHERE `level`> '50' Could be updsql(login,group_id(99),sex("F"),WHERE(level>50)); -- SELECT userid FROM login WHERE account_id = "+getcharid(3) could be setsql(login,userid,WHERE(account_id==getcharid(3))); so: set @userid,setsql(login,userid,WHERE(account_id==getcharid(3))); mes "Your user id is "+@userid+"!"; close; -- Edited November 9, 2014 by Zell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphy Posted November 9, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 72 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2997 Reputation: 1132 Joined: 05/27/12 Last Seen: June 1, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2014 As Emistry wrote, if you intend these commands to be as expressive as SQL, they'll get very complicated. Then users would have to learn both SQL and your commands. And if anything, this seems like it would be even slower than direct queries... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted November 9, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 135 Reputation: 13 Joined: 06/20/12 Last Seen: April 14, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I agree, I simple script command would make things easier. But not how you suggested.I would say something like CakePHP do, or even Ruby on Rails.Then you woulnd't have to learn SQL, and put all these motherfuckers ' " And, of course it won't be faster than the direct query, it's for faster development only.And, again, of course, keep a command to raw queries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zell Posted November 9, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 53 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 412 Reputation: 266 Joined: 04/25/12 Last Seen: Tuesday at 02:08 PM Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 I agree, I simple script command would make things easier. But not how you suggested. I would say something like CakePHP do, or even Ruby on Rails. Then you woulnd't have to learn SQL, and put all these motherfuckers ' " And, of course it won't be faster than the direct query, it's for faster development only. And, again, of course, keep a command to raw queries. Yes, it was only a sample, I know that the development team can found a better way. But the actual way it's not friendly, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts