From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Andrei Bintintan <klodoma(at)ar-sd(dot)net>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] OFFSET impact on Performance??? |
Date: | 2005-01-20 17:24:36 |
Message-ID: | 41EFE954.7080205@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Greg Stark wrote:
> "Andrei Bintintan" <klodoma(at)ar-sd(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>>If you're using this to provide "pages" of results, could you use a cursor?
>>
>>What do you mean by that? Cursor?
>>
>>Yes I'm using this to provide "pages", but If I jump to the last pages it goes
>>very slow.
>
>
> The best way to do pages for is not to use offset or cursors but to use an
> index. This only works if you can enumerate all the sort orders the
> application might be using and can have an index on each of them.
>
> To do this the query would look something like:
>
> SELECT * FROM tab WHERE col > ? ORDER BY col LIMIT 50
>
> Then you take note of the last value used on a given page and if the user
> selects "next" you pass that as the starting point for the next page.
Greg's is the most efficient, but you need to make sure you have a
suitable key available in the output of your select.
Also, since you are repeating the query you could get different results
as people insert/delete rows. This might or might not be what you want.
A similar solution is to partition by date/alphabet or similar, then
page those results. That can reduce your resultset to a manageable size.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2005-01-20 17:29:37 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-01-20 17:23:12 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-01-20 17:44:09 | Re: ERROR: row is too big: size 9856, maximum size 8136 |
Previous Message | Joel Fradkin | 2005-01-20 17:20:26 | Re: ERROR: row is too big: size 9856, maximum size 8136 |