From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, chester c young <chestercyoung(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: rownum |
Date: | 2003-02-14 15:42:30 |
Message-ID: | 3E4D0E66.1030406@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Friday 14 Feb 2003 5:20 am, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> select nextval('rownum'), * from (select ... order by ...) sub;
>>
>>The overhead of using a sequence for this is pretty annoying. It would
>>be a simple matter to write a C function that emits sequential values
>>without any database access (see pg_stat_get_backend_idset() for some
>>inspiration). But you'd still need the subselect to avoid getting
>>re-sorted. AFAICS any rownum() function that doesn't behave like that
>>is a flat violation of the SQL standard...
>
>
> Could you not build a wrapper function something like:
>
> SELECT with_rownum('SELECT ...');
>
> Where the function returns SETOF RECORD or similar - just fetch rows from the
> select and prepend a pg_rownum column?
>
I've played with this a bit in the past, and concluded that the best way
to do it (if in fact you agree it should be done at all), would be to
add a rownum pseudo column as the results are projected from the backend
to the frontend. I think this would require a change to the FE/BE
protocol, which we've talked about doing for 7.4.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-02-14 15:48:20 | Re: [SQL] Passing arrays |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-02-14 15:35:50 | Re: Table Pivot |