From: | "Andrew Snow" <als(at)fl(dot)net(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Pgsql-General(at)Postgresql(dot) Org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Large selects handled inefficiently? |
Date: | 2000-08-31 04:02:32 |
Message-ID: | NHEALMDKDACEIPBNOOOCMEHBCLAA.als@fl.net.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> A cursor is another slightly foolish SQL hack.
>
> A query language specifies the syntax of queries ('SELECT ...'). It
> doesn't specify the manner in which these are actually returned. It
> seems totally within the bounds of the remit of a decent client-side
> library (and a decent back-end) to realise that in practice a client
> will want some control over the speed with which rows are returned.
>
> Whilst explicit cursors are needed for some (IMO ugly) procedural SQL
> code, explicit cursors should not be necessary for the simple (and
> common) task of carrying out a SELECT which takes up more memory than
> you wish to have available at any single time.
Hmm, I agree. So, does the PostgreSQL protocol support some form of non-SQL
cursor?
- Andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Travis Bauer | 2000-08-31 04:13:43 | Error with tcp/ip networking |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-31 02:47:47 | Re: initdb Error: 'oid8' |