Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
| От | Joe Conway |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 407386FF.9020802@joeconway.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? (Eric Ridge <ebr@tcdi.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Eric Ridge wrote: > On Apr 6, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Jan Wieck wrote: >> And now you know why they are so good if you don't use all rows. This >> benefit I think goes away if you use Joe Conway's suggestion of WITH >> HOLD. > > Okay, so WITH HOLD is actually materializing the entire resultset > (sequential scan or otherwise)? If that's true, you're right, some of > the benefits do go away. Keep in mind that the tuplestore stays in memory as long as it fits within sort_mem kilobytes. And you can do: set sort_mem to <some_large_number>; prior to COMMIT, and then set sort_mem to default; after COMMIT, as long as you can afford the memory use. A bit ugly, but it might come in handy ;-) Joe
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: