Re: [PHP] mysql_error() problem?

From: "Tyler Longren" <tyler@jdhost.com>
> I'm running an UPDATE query on my table. After executing the query, I
check
> mysql_error() to see if there's any errors:
> if (mysql_error() == "") {
> // success
> }
> else {
> // failure
> }
>
> mysql_error() is always empty even if the query didn't succeed. So it
> always thinks it succeeds. I remember having this problem once quite a
> while ago. I remember somebody telling me that it had something to do
with
> UPDATE. Is there a better way to check for errors?

Please define "didn't succeed"... There is a difference between the query
"generated an error" which is caught with mysql_error() and the query "did
not affect any rows" which is caught by mysql_affected_rows().

---John Holmes...

* Thus wrote Tyler Longren (tyler@jdhost.com):
> hmmm...perhaps that was it. When I had this issue before, someone told me
> to check mysql_affected_rows() when using issuing an UPDATE query. I'll
> give that a shot.

Correct, mysql_affected_rows() on a query that doesn't return rows
(insert, update, delete) and use mysql_num_rows() for a select query.


Curt
--
"I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."

--On Wednesday, August 06, 2003 13:11:52 -0700 "Chris W. Parker"
<cparker@swatgear.com> wrote:

> Aside from the fact that $example1 != $example2, they are different in
> ATTITUDE.
>

Which was the original issue of this thread. Seems like few (with a
temporary advantage of knowledge) would consider not to have an attitude
(don't like to answer, don't do it) and if there is a choice, the nasty one
seems to prevail. I guess it's a reflection of the times/place we are
living or a huge lack of imagination.
My last word on this...


Andu