Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com>, Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
Date: 2004-04-07 04:09:35
Message-ID: 4998.1081310975@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

<wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/6/04 3:55 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In theory at least, that should not be any faster than a WITH HOLD
>> cursor, since you're effectively replicating the same functionality
>> outside the database ...

> Except for the "out of memory" thing...

What "out of memory thing"? The tuplestore code is perfectly capable of
spilling to disk --- in fact the usual performance gripe against it has
to do with spilling too soon, because sort_mem is set too small.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-04-07 04:12:15 Re: thread_test.c problems
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-04-07 04:07:24 Re: Logging database and statement with errors