Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ?
От | jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m0zVCaT-000EBPC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ? ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > When using cursors,in most cases the response to get first(next) rows > is necessary for me,not the throughput. > How can we tell PostgreSQL optimzer that the response is necessary ? With my LIMIT patch, the offset and the row count are part of the querytree. And if a LIMIT is given, the limitCount elemet of the querytree (a Node *) isn't NULL what it is by default. When a LIMIT is given, the optimizer could assume that first rows is wanted (even if the limit is ALL maybe - but I have to think about this some more). And this assumption might let it decide to use an index to resolve an ORDER BY even if no qualification was given. Telling the optimizer that first rows wanted in a cursor operation would read DECLARE CURSOR c FOR SELECT * FROM mytab ORDER BY a LIMIT ALL; Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: