From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Date: | 2000-10-27 03:11:33 |
Message-ID: | 39F8F265.C27990D7@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Now that I look at it, the optimizer *already* prefers fast-start plans
> >> for cursors. Is LIMIT ALL really necessary as an additional hint,
> >> and if so how should it interact with the bias for cursors?
>
> > If LIMIT doesn't restrict the total count of rows which cursors
> > could return,there's no problem. Otherwise LIMIT ALL would be
> > needed.
>
> But is there a reason to treat LIMIT ALL differently from no LIMIT
> clause at all?
>
For example,LIMIT ALL means LIMIT 1 for optimizer and means
no LIMIT for executor.
Comments ?
Regards, Hiroshi Inoue.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-27 03:12:38 | Re: pgsql (configure) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 03:05:15 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-27 03:11:34 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 03:05:15 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |