Il Thursday 15 November 2007 17:55:42 Sam Mason ha scritto:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 05:34:43PM +0100, Reg Me Please wrote:
> > Il Thursday 15 November 2007 14:09:16 Trevor Talbot ha scritto:
> > > On 11/15/07, Reg Me Please <regmeplease@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In any case, what'd be the benefit for not allowing "variables" as
> > > > LIMIT and OFFSET argument?
> > >
> > > When you can fully describe the semantics of your example, you'll
> > > probably be able to answer that question too :)
> >
> > The question is: why not correcting the syntax checker to allow also the
> > first solution?
>
> In relational algebra terms, try thinking about what would happen if you
> did something like:
>
> SELECT * FROM foo LIMIT val;
>
> Where the table foo has more than one row (and val had different values
> for each row). Which row would the database use? I believe these are
> the semantics Trevor was referring to.
>
> In implementation terms, the problem is that a query is planned without
> getting any data from the database. If you're planning a query it helps
> to know how many rows you're getting back. If you're getting few rows
> back then it's probably better to make the query work differently than
> if it's returning lots of rows. Therefore, knowing what the LIMIT is,
> at planning time, makes a lot of difference. How would this work in the
> presence of arbitrary expressions for LIMIT?
>
>
> Sam
Your remarks make a lot of sense. Of course.
But then why allowing the LIMIT and the OFFSET as coming from function
argument evaluations?
Isn't this breaking the planner?
Of course I would say no, as in my case it's just working fine, only
more complex to write that the "simpler" way.
--
Reg me Please
