| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation |
| Date: | 2000-02-16 15:43:35 |
| Message-ID: | 2920.950715815@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> A possible answer is to define OFFSET/LIMIT in DECLARE CURSOR as
>> being simply a hint to the optimizer about how much of the query
>> result will actually get fetched.
> This seems a good approach until cursors are fixed. But is there a plan to
> make cursors support LIMIT properly? Do you know why they ignore the LIMIT
> clause?
Should they obey LIMIT? MOVE/FETCH seems like a considerably more
flexible interface, so I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to
use LIMIT in a cursor.
Still, it seems kind of inconsistent that cursors ignore LIMIT.
I don't know for sure why it was done that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-16 15:48:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-16 15:19:48 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO: Cache most recent query plan |