Re: ORDER BY random() LIMIT 1 slowness

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, SZUCS Gábor <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ORDER BY random() LIMIT 1 slowness
Date: 2002-12-18 20:00:07
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0212181258290.3807-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:

> Alvara,
>
> But instead of returning an error, currval() should return last_value if
> nextval() was not called (with all the caveat of couse). I think it
> would be more usefull that way.

no, that would be like walking around with a gun pointed at your foot, to
quote Tom Lane.

See my post on transactions and such. Remember that everything in
Postgresql is designed to make transactions safe. currval working without
a nextval or setval before it is dangerous in the exterme to transactions.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2002-12-18 20:02:46 Re: Measuring CPU time use? (Another stupid question)
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2002-12-18 19:54:30 Re: ORDER BY random() LIMIT 1 slowness