From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Joost Kraaijeveld <J(dot)Kraaijeveld(at)Askesis(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Can this query go faster??? |
Date: | 2005-12-06 10:32:36 |
Message-ID: | 439568C4.8050601@wildenhain.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Joost Kraaijeveld schrieb:
> On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 10:52 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
>
>>Joost,
>>
>>Why do you use an offset here ? I guess you're traversing the table
>>somehow, in this case it would be better to remember the last zipcode +
>>housenumber and put an additional condition to get the next bigger than
>>the last one you've got... that would go for the index on
>>zipcode+housenumber and be very fast. The big offset forces postgres to
>>traverse that many entries until it's able to pick the one row for the
>
> I am forced to translate a sorting dependent record number to a record
> in the database. The GUI (a Java JTable) works with record /row numbers,
> which is handy if one has an ISAM database, but not if one uses
> PostgreSQL.
You can have a row number in postgres easily too. For example if you
just include a serial for the row number.
Cursor would work too but you would need to have a persistent connection.
Regards
Tino
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Olleg | 2005-12-06 10:40:47 | Re: BLCKSZ |
Previous Message | Joost Kraaijeveld | 2005-12-06 10:21:00 | Re: Can this query go faster??? |