Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
От | Relaxin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bj6scv$1rdp$1@news.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS ("Relaxin" <noname@spam.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
All rows are required. ""Shridhar Daithankar"" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> wrote in message news:3F573E8B.31916.A1063F8@localhost... > On 4 Sep 2003 at 0:48, Relaxin wrote: > > All of the databases that I tested the query against gave me immediate > > access to ANY row of the resultset once the data had been returned. > > Ex. If I'm currently at the first row and then wanted to goto the 100,000 > > row, I would be there immediately, and if I wanted to then goto the 5 > > row...same thing, I have the record immediately! > > > > The other databases I tested against stored the entire resultset on the > > Server, I'm not sure what PG does...It seems that brings the entire > > resultset client side. > > If that is the case, how can I have PG store the resultset on the Server AND > > still allow me immediate access to ANY row in the resultset? > > You can use a cursor and get only required rows. > > > Bye > Shridhar > > -- > Nick the Greek's Law of Life: All things considered, life is 9 to 5 against. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: