• Text Size: Normal / Large
• Donate
• Contact

Results 1-20 of 55.

Result pages: 1 2 3 Next

1. Re: BUG #7627: Bad query plan when using LIMIT [2.10]
From Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> on 2012-10-30T09:23:17.
LIMIT 1", but the one with >> the limit gets radically worse performance. I've done
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+U5nMK_TatpM9r7Z9OzZ7Kv-6cmE8Pdw_wrRnyxUypDkAFADQ@mail.gmail.com

2. Re: BUG #7499: wrong data sorting if I use "...limit 1..." SQL clause along with "...order by ..." [1.30]
From Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> on 2012-08-20T03:41:44.
limit 1 offset 53; > 111 | Kolesnik This is not a bug. Your ORDER BY does
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5048.1345434104@sss.pgh.pa.us

3. BUG #7495: chosen wrong index [1.20]
From psql@elbrief.de on 2012-08-15T13:52:29.
limit 10 ; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Limit (cost=0.00..0.27 rows=10 width=8) (actual time=0.150..0.173 rows
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1T1e1N-0004mk-2z@wrigleys.postgresql.org

4. BUG #7499: wrong data sorting if I use "...limit 1..." SQL clausealong with "...order by ..." [1.10]
From lirex.software@gmail.com on 2012-08-19T18:46:55.
limit 1 offset 53; 111 | Kolesnik the 4-rd query should return 1 | Kolesnik instead
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1T3AWV-0005oS-Ik@wrigleys.postgresql.org

5. Re: BUG #7591: Large query string has limit [1.00]
From Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> on 2012-10-09T18:34:27.
pking@nrcan.gc.ca writes: > I am dealing with the open source program called "Geonetwork". It is passing
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2282.1349807667@sss.pgh.pa.us

6. Re-2: BUG #7495: chosen wrong index [0.60]
From psql@elbrief.de on 2012-08-16T10:13:23.
limit 10 ; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit (cost=0.00..30.75 rows=10 width=8) -> Index Scan using
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1345112003.31477D0.11867@debian2

7. Re: BUG #6412: psql & fe-connect truncate passwords [0.40]
From Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> on 2012-09-20T07:18:08.
limit within simple_prompt(), like 100k) * .pg_service.conf handling still has a fixed limit on line
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/505AC330.7010102@vmware.com

8. BUG #7665: Query planner generating incorrect query plan [0.40]
From dato0011@hotmail.com on 2012-11-16T13:21:27.
LIMIT keyword and how it affects query planner. I have a database with 6 tables
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1TZLrL-0002Cy-In@wrigleys.postgresql.org

9. BUG #7629: Suboptimal query plan when index search is possible and anadditional search operator is given. [0.40]
From dmigowski@ikoffice.de on 2012-10-30T11:49:21.
limit 1 it does a sequential scan. "Limit (cost=43443.23..43443.24 rows=1 width=12)" " Output
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1TTAJt-0004X5-Gw@wrigleys.postgresql.org

10. Re: Nested xmlagg doesn't give a result 9.2.3 [0.30]
From Lou Picciano <loupicciano@comcast.net> on 2013-02-19T17:16:27.
LIMIT 88 fails -> returns nothing >> >>> Selecting all fails as well. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2013/2/19 Peter Kroon >> >>>> >> >>>> When
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1769264667.1407782.1361294187299.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net

11. Re: Nested xmlagg doesn't give a result 9.2.3 [0.30]
From Peter Kroon <plakroon@gmail.com> on 2013-02-19T16:44:01.
LIMIT 88 fails -> returns nothing > >>> Selecting all fails as well. > >>> > >>> > >>> 2013/2/19 Peter Kroon > >>>> > >>>> When
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOh+DOmrK3m1icoTYv1yuuisYD7WuAKyFnO8o5DAxMCc6UOJjg@mail.gmail.com

12. Re: bug #7499 additional comments [0.30]
From "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> on 2012-08-22T21:19:21.
LIMIT, it is important to use an ORDER BY clause > that constrains the result rows
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/503506890200002500049A1F@gw.wicourts.gov

13. Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus [0.30]
From Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> on 2013-01-24T20:59:42.
limit would apply if you have > > >>> RETURNING but not when you don't. In any case
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130124205942.GC21914@momjian.us

14. Re: Nested xmlagg doesn't give a result 9.2.3 [0.30]
From Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> on 2013-02-19T16:48:13.
LIMIT 88 fails -> returns nothing >> >>> Selecting all fails as well. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2013/2/19 Peter Kroon >> >>>> >> >>>> When
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRAK=RGaAsuRKn0QgPa_EVgt_ZhPxUXrpe10DmhCoMj-Aw@mail.gmail.com

15. Re: Nested xmlagg doesn't give a result 9.2.3 [0.30]
From Peter Kroon <plakroon@gmail.com> on 2013-02-20T14:20:54.
LIMIT 88 fails -> returns nothing >> >> >> >>> Selecting all fails as well. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> 2013/2/19 Peter Kroon >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> When
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOh+DO=zM_V-RW3qmJE6=1N5PgBQXuhByZVoAc9duzoykx6xRg@mail.gmail.com

16. stable vs. immutable unaccent function [0.30]
From Thangalin <thangalin@gmail.com> on 2013-05-05T02:05:04.
LIMIT 1; The above code fails; the value for v_id is never set. Without
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAANrE7rpWjvZgdKX_hArNp8ynUezZ-Ehp8QEqC7hwfXuNqa91g@mail.gmail.com

17. Re: BUG #6695: PgAdminIII [0.20]
From Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com> on 2012-06-15T20:22:55.
LIMIT, a interface > gráfica do PgAdmin III parece não respeitar o parâmetro, ou está criando
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FDB999F.8030504@timbira.com

18. BUG #7510: Very bad costing estimation on gin vs gist with FTS [0.20]
From daniel@heroku.com on 2012-08-29T21:36:38.
Limit" + Startup Cost: 0.00 + Total Cost: 14.48 + Plan Rows: 6 + Plan Width: 240 + Actual Startup
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1T6pwE-0003p5-3c@wrigleys.postgresql.org

19. Re: BUG #7602: Select with many joins against the same table is very slow compared to 9.2.0. [0.20]
From Hedén Daniel <Daniel.Heden@sweco.se> on 2012-10-16T13:55:21.
limit` it is still out commented is this not default. When I try to run EXPLAIN
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26526AB77242C544B86B458364BF5D4127414F@essth103.sweco.se

20. Re: Prepared Statement Name Truncation [0.20]
From "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> on 2012-11-18T03:49:20.
limit and ERROR instead of truncating and NOTICE? > Both? Neither because that would break backward
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6bbb6151ee8205741a05512bc81d059d@biglumber.com

Result pages: 1 2 3 Next