| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? |
| Date: | 2004-04-07 04:43:43 |
| Message-ID: | 407386FF.9020802@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Eric Ridge wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> And now you know why they are so good if you don't use all rows. This
>> benefit I think goes away if you use Joe Conway's suggestion of WITH
>> HOLD.
>
> Okay, so WITH HOLD is actually materializing the entire resultset
> (sequential scan or otherwise)? If that's true, you're right, some of
> the benefits do go away.
Keep in mind that the tuplestore stays in memory as long as it fits
within sort_mem kilobytes. And you can do:
set sort_mem to <some_large_number>;
prior to COMMIT, and then
set sort_mem to default;
after COMMIT, as long as you can afford the memory use. A bit ugly, but
it might come in handy ;-)
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Garamond | 2004-04-07 04:55:16 | Re: SQL trees and other nonsense... |
| Previous Message | Rajat Katyal | 2004-04-07 04:38:22 | Re: PERFORM statement inside procedure |