From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Date: | 2000-10-27 03:05:15 |
Message-ID: | 27738.972615915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that I look at it, the optimizer *already* prefers fast-start plans
>> for cursors. Is LIMIT ALL really necessary as an additional hint,
>> and if so how should it interact with the bias for cursors?
> If LIMIT doesn't restrict the total count of rows which cursors
> could return,there's no problem. Otherwise LIMIT ALL would be
> needed.
But is there a reason to treat LIMIT ALL differently from no LIMIT
clause at all?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:11:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:04:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:11:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:04:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |