| From: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464a3(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | sangeetha <tune2sangee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate or Optimization for with hold cursor |
| Date: | 2016-05-12 11:25:05 |
| Message-ID: | 8922C03A-92CE-49B7-98EB-EB55FCAECA40@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On May 12, 2016, at 4:57 AM, sangeetha <tune2sangee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
Currently , I am using "With hold" cursor. In our case , the With hold cursor
is used to fetch the next record of the given primary key .
Can you explain your use case. If i understand with hold correctly, it is typically used to preserve locks even after commit , so as to get a consistent view of data.
The performance
is very slow for large data set. Can you provide me some alternative ways
like having own copy of table , or optimization for With hold cursor?
Thanks and Regards,
S.Sangeetha
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Alternate-or-Optimization-for-with-hold-cursor-tp5903211.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Pearson | 2016-05-12 11:26:19 | Re: [GENERAL] NULL concatenation |
| Previous Message | sangeetha | 2016-05-12 08:57:30 | Alternate or Optimization for with hold cursor |