Rowset semantics:\nIs an OLE DB rowset effectively equivalent to a cursor (a navigable result set of rows)?

Introduction / Context:
OLE DB abstracts tabular results via the concept of a rowset. Many developers come from APIs that use the term “cursor” to mean a handle over a set of rows that can be fetched, navigated, and updated. This question examines whether those two notions correspond.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Rowsets expose rows and columns from a command or table.
• Consumers can fetch rows sequentially and sometimes navigate.
• Different providers offer varying capabilities (scrollable, updatable).

Concept / Approach:
A cursor is a programming construct for iterating a query’s result set. OLE DB’s rowset represents the same idea at the COM interface level: a set of rows with accessor/navigation interfaces. While provider features differ, the conceptual equivalence—“a handle over a tabular result”—is accurate. Hence, it is reasonable to say an OLE DB rowset is equivalent, in purpose, to a cursor.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Define cursor: a navigable pointer over result rows.Define rowset: OLE DB’s representation of a tabular result.Map behaviors (fetch, move, accessor) and note that both solve the same problem space.

Verification / Alternative check:
Provider documentation often compares rowsets to cursors; ADO’s Recordset (built atop OLE DB) is likewise positioned as a cursor-like abstraction.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Capabilities like scrollability vary, but that does not negate the equivalence in purpose. Terms like MARS (multiple active result sets) are unrelated to the core definition.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming every rowset is updatable; update support is provider- and query-dependent.

Final Answer:
Correct