| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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) |