From: | Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? |
Date: | 2004-04-07 14:32:37 |
Message-ID: | 6AB8B439-88A0-11D8-91AB-000A95BB5944@tcdi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Apr 7, 2004, at 12:43 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> 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:
More good information. Thanks!
Is the tuplestore basically just an array of ItemPointer-s? In mean,
it's not a copy of each entire row, is it?
eric
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Cohen | 2004-04-07 14:34:00 | How to list domains |
Previous Message | Eric Ridge | 2004-04-07 14:28:55 | Re: Cursors and Transactions, why? |