| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bupp Phillips <hello(at)noname(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What is the fastest way to get a resultset |
| Date: | 2003-08-25 20:46:34 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.44.0308251645360.15800-100000@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Bupp Phillips wrote:
>
> I have a table that has 103,000 records in it (record size is about 953
> bytes) and when I do a select all (select * from <table>) it takes a
> whopping 30 secs for the data to return!!
>
> SQLServer on the other hand takes 6 secs, but you can also use what is
> called a firehose cursor, which will return the data in < 1 sec.
>
You probably want a cursor.
Typically what happens is postgres sends _all_ the data to the client -
which can be rather substantial. A cursor allows you to say "get me the
first 1000 records. now the next 1000" - it should get you the speed you
want.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-25 21:09:19 | Re: Replication Ideas |
| Previous Message | Magnus Naeslund(f) | 2003-08-25 20:37:24 | Re: What is the fastest way to get a resultset |