From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
To: Frank van Vugt <ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Incremental results from libpq
Date: 10 Nov 2005 14:27:18 -0500
Message-ID: <877jbgb8x5.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200511101751.55377.ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl>
References: <4D426B54-E08F-4DE9-9776-D46610CA4968@slamb.org>
<19391.1131571328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<84C7635D-EAF2-40CF-A71C-976077D5465A@slamb.org>
<200511101751.55377.ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl>
Frank van Vugt <ftm.van.vugt@foxi.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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: gsstark@mit.edu, ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Incremental results from libpq
In-Reply-To: <877jbgb8x5.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox