On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Brandon Williams <driftx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Erik Holstad <erikholstad@gmail.com> wrote: 
Wow that sounds really good. So you are saying if I set it to reverse sort order and count 10 for the first round I get the last 10,
for the next call I just set the last column from the first call to start and I will get the columns -10- -20, so to speak?

Actually, since they are reversed and you're trying to move backwards, you'll need to pass the last column from the first query (since they will be sorted in reverse order) as the start to the next one with reverse still set to true.


Thanks a lot Brandon for clearing that out for me, I think that was what I was trying to say. But that is really good,
cause now I don't have to store the data twice in different sort orders.

Regards Erik