Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Shridhar Daithankar
Subject Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date
Msg-id 3F573E8B.31916.A1063F8@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS  ("Relaxin" <noname@spam.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On 4 Sep 2003 at 0:48, Relaxin wrote:
> All of the databases that I tested the query against gave me immediate
> access to ANY row of the resultset once the data had been returned.
> Ex. If  I'm currently at the first row and then wanted to goto the 100,000
> row, I would be there immediately, and if I wanted to then goto the 5
> row...same thing, I have the record immediately!
>
> The other databases I tested against stored the entire resultset on the
> Server, I'm not sure what PG does...It seems that brings the entire
> resultset client side.
> If that is the case, how can I have PG store the resultset on the Server AND
> still allow me immediate access to ANY row in the resultset?

You can use a cursor and get only required rows.


Bye
 Shridhar

--
Nick the Greek's Law of Life:    All things considered, life is 9 to 5 against.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Relaxin"
Date:
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Next
From: "Relaxin"
Date:
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS