| From: | "tjk(at)tksoft(dot)com" <tjk(at)tksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | raanders(at)altoplanos(dot)net (Roderick A(dot) Anderson) |
| Cc: | oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] trivial problem |
| Date: | 1999-10-29 18:12:49 |
| Message-ID: | 199910291812.LAA24162@uno.tksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
If limit didn't mean "get first 50," there would be no time/effort
saved by specifying a limit.
I.e. when a limit is specified, the backend looks for matches until it
finds 50 records, and then stops.
Troy
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> > select * from table order by column limit 50
> >
>
> It used to be and could still be in Oracle (sorry to pull them into this)
> that limit applied to the selection clause so the first 'n' tulples
> selected,not the top/bottom 'n', would be reported.
> Would this be a feature of the SQL standard or of Oracles
> implementation? And how does PostgreSQL handle limits?
>
> Rod
> --
> Roderick A. Anderson
> raanders(at)altoplanos(dot)net Altoplanos Information Systems, Inc.
> Voice: 208.765.6149 212 S. 11th Street, Suite 5
> FAX: 208.664.5299 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
>
>
> ************
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Werner Reisberger | 1999-10-29 19:36:03 | tuning large selects |
| Previous Message | Roderick A. Anderson | 1999-10-29 17:07:16 | Re: [SQL] trivial problem |