Re: UPDATE grabs multiple rows when it seems like it should only grab one

From: Kevin Burke <burke(at)shyp(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UPDATE grabs multiple rows when it seems like it should only grab one
Date: 2016-04-23 03:04:35
Message-ID: CAEYV4pa-P8_VPExg1w3cSmReK4V4KMfkHMqDQHMAmDgiqyPNpQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Thanks both of you for your help; I can see why the first query was
incorrect.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> LIMIT without an ORDER BY is ill-defined.

I moved to a CTE, but isn't LIMIT without an ORDER BY OK for this use case?
A series of dequeuers are more or less trying to find any queued job; it
doesn't really matter which one they get. I may be getting the indexes
wrong, but as far as I can tell it's about twice as expensive to fetch a
row with an ORDER BY as without it.

(There's probably a better design here, where I do batch fetches and then
distribute the work; let's ignore that for the moment).

--
kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Burke 2016-04-23 03:05:06 Re: UPDATE grabs multiple rows when it seems like it should only grab one
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-04-22 23:27:03 Re: UPDATE grabs multiple rows when it seems like it should only grab one