From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | marcinha rocha <marciaestefanidarocha(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Function with limit and offset - PostgreSQL 9.3 |
Date: | 2017-06-09 02:47:49 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYjoMiAfzG9j2LUanHxPiLOdmUP6WnwtMHnTb-r6QyqKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017, marcinha rocha <marciaestefanidarocha(at)hotmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017, marcinha rocha <marciaestefanidarocha@
> hotmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marciaestefanidarocha(at)hotmail(dot)com');>>
> wrote:
>
>> On my original select, the row will have migrated = false. Maybe All I
>> need to put is a limit 2000 and the query will do the rest?
>>
>>
> You shoud try to avoid the for loop,
>
> Why?
>
Mainly expected performance concerns. The engine is designed to handle
results sets as opposed to single row iterating. Whether it's true in your
case I don't know but I would assume that operating on sets would be faster.
>
> Ok, cool!
>
> Now, how do tell the function to return the number of touched rows? On
> this case, it should always be 2000.
>
>
Unless there are fewer rows to process. You could always just do i = i + 1
in the loop.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2017-06-09 04:56:05 | Re: Function with limit and offset - PostgreSQL 9.3 |
Previous Message | marcinha rocha | 2017-06-09 02:13:37 | Re: Function with limit and offset - PostgreSQL 9.3 |