Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?

From: Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
Date: 2004-04-07 14:32:37
Message-ID: 6AB8B439-88A0-11D8-91AB-000A95BB5944@tcdi.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Apr 7, 2004, at 12:43 AM, Joe Conway wrote:

> Eric Ridge wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>> And now you know why they are so good if you don't use all rows.
>>> This benefit I think goes away if you use Joe Conway's suggestion of
>>> WITH HOLD.
>> Okay, so WITH HOLD is actually materializing the entire resultset
>> (sequential scan or otherwise)? If that's true, you're right, some
>> of the benefits do go away.
>
> Keep in mind that the tuplestore stays in memory as long as it fits
> within sort_mem kilobytes. And you can do:

More good information. Thanks!

Is the tuplestore basically just an array of ItemPointer-s? In mean,
it's not a copy of each entire row, is it?

eric

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Cohen 2004-04-07 14:34:00 How to list domains
Previous Message Eric Ridge 2004-04-07 14:28:55 Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?