Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2920.950715815@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation
RE: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes: >> A possible answer is to define OFFSET/LIMIT in DECLARE CURSOR as >> being simply a hint to the optimizer about how much of the query >> result will actually get fetched. > This seems a good approach until cursors are fixed. But is there a plan to > make cursors support LIMIT properly? Do you know why they ignore the LIMIT > clause? Should they obey LIMIT? MOVE/FETCH seems like a considerably more flexible interface, so I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to use LIMIT in a cursor. Still, it seems kind of inconsistent that cursors ignore LIMIT. I don't know for sure why it was done that way. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: