Re: [SQL] trivial problem
От | Moray McConnachie |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [SQL] trivial problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 003101bf2248$76e0d8e0$9f1b4cc0@public.ox.ac.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [SQL] trivial problem ("tjk@tksoft.com" <tjk@tksoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [SQL] trivial problem
|
Список | pgsql-sql |
----- Original Message ----- From: <tjk@tksoft.com> To: Roderick A. Anderson <raanders@altoplanos.net> Cc: <oleg@sai.msu.su>; <pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [SQL] trivial problem > If limit didn't mean "get first 50," there would be no time/effort > saved by specifying a limit. > > I.e. when a limit is specified, the backend looks for matches until it > finds 50 records, and then stops. Eh? I think the questioner meant effectively "in a query with LIMIT and ORDER BY, which takes precedence?". To which the answer appears to be ORDER BY, which surprised me, but is of course very useful. I.e. all sorting is completed, and then the first fifty records are returned. Does that mean that the seek time for a limited, ordered by query is the same as that for an unlimited query? The extra speed gained from the limit only achieved by not having to return the data? Or is there some kind of magic going on to allow it to ignore certain things about the query when a LIMIT is in place?
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: