Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
От | Eric Ridge |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6AB8B439-88A0-11D8-91AB-000A95BB5944@tcdi.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Apr 7, 2004, at 12:43 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > 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: More good information. Thanks! Is the tuplestore basically just an array of ItemPointer-s? In mean, it's not a copy of each entire row, is it? eric
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: