From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation |
Date: | 2000-02-11 06:57:59 |
Message-ID: | 38A3B2F7.286CD6ED@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Don Baccus wrote:
> But ... that doesn't mean that some folks might not want to use
> it differently. What if LIMIT 2 were more efficient that COUNT(*)
> in order to determine if more than one row satisfies a condition?
select count(*) > 1 from a;
And if that's not efficient, why not optimise _that_, since it
expresses directly what you want?
> But I wouldn't feel badly at all if LIMIT limited to queries
> with ORDER BY. I think this could be done gramatically, i.e.
>
> [query] ORDER BY
If you are going to limit it thus, it only makes sense if you
either order by a unique key or order by every single column.
Otherwise, why limit it at all? And that can't be determined
gramatically.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2000-02-11 07:11:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] The persistance of C functions |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2000-02-11 06:41:10 | Re: [HACKERS] psql and libpq fixes |