Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS

From: "Relaxin" <noname(at)spam(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date: 2003-09-04 08:16:47
Message-ID: bj6scv$1rdp$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

All rows are required.

""Shridhar Daithankar"" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> wrote in
message news:3F573E8B(dot)31916(dot)A1063F8(at)localhost(dot)(dot)(dot)
> On 4 Sep 2003 at 0:48, Relaxin wrote:
> > All of the databases that I tested the query against gave me immediate
> > access to ANY row of the resultset once the data had been returned.
> > Ex. If I'm currently at the first row and then wanted to goto the
100,000
> > row, I would be there immediately, and if I wanted to then goto the 5
> > row...same thing, I have the record immediately!
> >
> > The other databases I tested against stored the entire resultset on the
> > Server, I'm not sure what PG does...It seems that brings the entire
> > resultset client side.
> > If that is the case, how can I have PG store the resultset on the Server
AND
> > still allow me immediate access to ANY row in the resultset?
>
> You can use a cursor and get only required rows.
>
>
> Bye
> Shridhar
>
> --
> Nick the Greek's Law of Life: All things considered, life is 9 to 5
against.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-09-04 10:40:54 Re: Query on Postgresql performance
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-09-04 08:00:51 Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS