| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Frank van Vugt <ftm(dot)van(dot)vugt(at)foxi(dot)nl> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Subject: | Re: Incremental results from libpq | 
| Date: | 2005-11-10 19:27:18 | 
| Message-ID: | 877jbgb8x5.fsf@stark.xeocode.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces | 
Frank van Vugt <ftm(dot)van(dot)vugt(at)foxi(dot)nl> writes:
> I'm wondering, what kind of failure do you have in mind, here? If I'm informed 
> correctly then Oracle and others are generating the complete static result 
> set on the server-side, which will then stay cached until all rows/chunks are 
> fetched. 
That's obviously not true. Try doing "select * from huge_table" on Oracle and
you'll see records start appearing immediately. There are applications where
huge_table could occupy hundreds of gigabytes (or petabytes) and requiring all
queries to create copies of all their result sets before proceeding would make
lots of important applications entirely infeasible.
-- 
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Frank van Vugt | 2005-11-10 20:33:20 | Re: Incremental results from libpq | 
| Previous Message | Frank van Vugt | 2005-11-10 17:09:54 | Re: Incremental results from libpq |