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

From Relaxin
Subject Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Date
Msg-id bj6scv$1rdp$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS  ("Relaxin" <noname@spam.com>)
Responses Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
List pgsql-performance
All rows are required.

""Shridhar Daithankar"" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> wrote in
message news:3F573E8B.31916.A1063F8@localhost...
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Shridhar Daithankar"
Date:
Subject: Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Next
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Query on Postgresql performance