Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app?
| От | Dominique Devienne |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFCRh-8YnsZCEtzqfyr33mZd9gbR7vg45hFu8aqH5Eha3Cj6Gw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app? (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app?
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 6:48 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
As we wrote, some of us think that cursors are useful, and we tried to
explain why we think that. If you don't think that cursors are useful,
don't use them. We are not out to convince you otherwise.
Perhaps OT (I only skimed this thread) but when I compared Cursors to regular Statements / Queries
from a LIBPQ client application perspective, on the same "streamable" queries (i.e. w/o a sort), Cursor
shined in terms of time-to-first-row, compared to waiting for the whole ResultSet, but getting the full result
OTOH was 2x as long with Cursor, compared to the regular SELECT Statement.
Thus in my mind, it really depends on what you value in a particular situation, latency or throughput. --DD
PS: In my testing, I used forward-only cursors
PPS: I don't recall the ResultSet cardinality or byte size, nor the batching used with the Cursor.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: