| From: | "David Parker" <dparker(at)tazznetworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "postgres general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: explicit cursor vs. for loop in pl/pgsql |
| Date: | 2005-05-17 19:51:42 |
| Message-ID: | 07FDEE0ED7455A48AC42AC2070EDFF7C746252@corpsrv2.tazznetworks.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks for the info. I've got an index, so I guess it's as good as it
gets!
The data is actually copied over from the slony transaction log table,
and there's no way to know how many statements (=rows) there might be
for any given transaction, so assigning an arbitrary limit seems too
risky, and I don't want to take the hit of a select count.
Thanks again.
- DAP
>> The nature of the data is that chunksize doesn't necessarily
>match up
>> one-for-one with rows, so I can't use it as a LIMIT value.
>
>Can you set an upper bound on how many rows you need? If you
>can put a LIMIT into the select, it'll encourage the planner
>to use an indexscan, even if you break out of the loop before
>the limit is reached.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Tocci | 2005-05-17 19:55:46 | TABLEs to VIEWs with Perl |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-17 19:38:43 | Re: explicit cursor vs. for loop in pl/pgsql |