From: | Jakub Ouhrabka <jouh8664(at)ss1000(dot)ms(dot)mff(dot)cuni(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | Jirka Novak <j(dot)novak(at)netsystem(dot)cz> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Slow response from 'SELECT * FROM table' |
Date: | 2002-11-11 10:13:01 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0211111110310.27466-100000@server |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
hi,
do you really need all 500k records? if not i'd suggest using limit and
offset clause (select * from table order by xy limit 100 - xy should be
indexed...) or if you really need all records use a cursor.
kuba
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Jirka Novak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have table with 30 columns and 30000..500000 rows. When I make
> 'SELECT * FROM table' postgresql start doing something and return first
> row after 10s (for 30k rows) and after 5min (500k rows). It looks like
> it copy whole response to temp space and after that it shows it.
> I don't know why. I tested same table structure and datas on Oracle
> and MSSQL and both returned first row immediatly.
> Have someone any idea?
>
> Jirka Novak
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Helge Bahmann | 2002-11-11 11:56:11 | Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine? |
Previous Message | Jirka Novak | 2002-11-11 10:08:08 | Slow response from 'SELECT * FROM table' |