| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-oo(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed new libpq API |
| Date: | 2000-07-05 23:42:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3963C7C8.B7DC382@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> One last comment .. when you say 'random access', are you saying that I
> can't do a 'PQexec()' to get the results for a SELECT, use a for loop to
> go through those results, and then start from i=0 to go through that loop
> again without having to do a new SELECT on it?
Random access means that the whole query result is in memory. If you
choose to use PQflush then you will no longer be able to go back to 0
and re-iterate. If you don't use PQflush then you can do what you do now
which is go back and iterate through. If you use PQflush it means that
you don't need to do that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-07-05 23:47:31 | Re: Article on MySQL vs. Postgres |
| Previous Message | Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-07-05 23:28:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable? |