Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app?

From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app?
Date: 2023-03-16 08:55:32
Message-ID: CAFCRh-9B8mf6tJrGziis7SfSzYyOiXgsk-_abOVc8FMm5e-75Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 9:23 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> čt 16. 3. 2023 v 9:18 odesílatel Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
> napsal:
>
>> [...] depends on what you value in a particular situation, latency or
>> throughput. --DD
>>
>
> cursors are optimized for minimal cost of first row, queries are optimized
> for minimal cost of last row
>

That's a nice way to put it Pavel.

And to have it both ways, use COPY in binary protocol? That way the rows
are streamed
to you in arbitrary chunks as soon as available (I hope), and the burden is
on you the
client to decode and use those rows in parallel as they are "streamed" to
you.

I've yet to test that (thus the 'i hope' above). I used COPY binary for
INSERTs,
and COPY text/json for SELECTs, not yet COPY binary for SELECTs. I'm hoping
the latency of COPY will be small compared to a regular SELECT where I have
to
wait for LIBPQ to assemble the whole ResultSet. Are my hopes unfounded? --DD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-03-16 09:28:21 Re: pg_upgrade Only the install user can be defined in the new cluster
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2023-03-16 08:23:12 Re: Is the PL/pgSQL refcursor useful in a modern three-tier app?