On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:42:10PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:49:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This has been discussed before, and rejected.  Please see the archives.
> > 
> > For SELECT, both LIMIT and OFFSET are only well-defined in the presence
> > of an ORDER BY clause.  (One could argue that we should reject them when
> > no ORDER BY, but given that the database isn't getting changed as a side
> > effect, that's probably too anal-retentive.  When the database *is*
> > going to be changed, however, I for one like well-defined results.)
> > 
> > If this proposal included adding an ORDER BY to UPDATE/DELETE, then it
> > would at least be logically consistent.  I have not seen the use-case
> > for it though.  In any case you can usually get the equivalent result
> > with something like
> > 
> >     UPDATE foo SET ...
> >     WHERE pkey IN (SELECT pkey FROM foo ORDER BY ... LIMIT ...);
> 
> BTW, this is a case where using ctid would make sense, though you can't:
> 
> decibel=# update rrs set parent=parent+1 where ctid in (select ctid from
> rrs order by rrs_id limit 1);
> ERROR:  could not identify an ordering operator for type tid
> HINT:  Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query.
> ERROR:  could not identify an ordering operator for type tid
> HINT:  Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query.
> decibel=# 

Actually, after trying this, curiosity took hold:
(Note that it's not actually safe to use ctid like this)

decibel=# explain analyze select * from rrs where ctid='(0,3)';
                                          QUERY PLAN                            
              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tid Scan on rrs  (cost=0.00..4.01 rows=1 width=66) (actual time=0.072..0.076 
rows=1 loops=1)
   Filter: (ctid = '(0,3)'::tid)
 Total runtime: 0.265 ms
(3 rows)

decibel=# 

Shouldn't there be an access method that goes directly to the specified
ctid instead of doing a seqscan? Even on a small table it seems this
would be faster than a seqscan.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to