| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, David Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
| Date: | 2004-05-27 13:29:46 |
| Message-ID: | 13569.1085664586@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, 26 May 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not real sure where to document this
>> trick but it seems like we ought to mention it someplace.
> Isn't it better to detect a UPDATE without a where and do that update in
> the same way as the alter table above? Then we don't need to document and
> learn a new non standard way of doing an update.
No, because the locking implications are completely different. I don't
want UPDATE to suddenly decide it needs an exclusive lock on the table
based on the shape of the WHERE clause.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Blasby | 2004-05-27 16:26:54 | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
| Previous Message | pgsql | 2004-05-27 12:55:06 | Re: tablespaces and DB administration |