| From: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sequential scan result order vs performance |
| Date: | 2016-10-31 10:52:31 |
| Message-ID: | d8jk2cordsg.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> BTW, I've sometimes wished for a mode where queries would silently have
> result ordering intentionally futzed, to eliminate any possibility of
> dependence on tuple ordering (as well as having sequences start at some
> random value).
FWIW, SQLite has this, in the form of 'PRAGMA reverse_unordered_selects'.
http://sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_reverse_unordered_selects
--
"The surreality of the universe tends towards a maximum" -- Skud's Law
"Never formulate a law or axiom that you're not prepared to live with
the consequences of." -- Skud's Meta-Law
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2016-10-31 10:56:50 | Re: Improve output of BitmapAnd EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-10-31 10:38:44 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |