Gregory Stark wrote:
>"Abhijit Menon-Sen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Interleaved retrieval using multiple portals is not what most
>>> libraries support, I'd guess.
>> My code did support that mode of operation in theory, but in practice
>> in the few situations where I have needed to use something like it, I
>> found it more convenient to open explicit cursors and FETCH from them
>Note that using FETCH for each record means a round trip to the server for
>each record. If you're dealing with a lot of records that could be a lot
>slower than streaming them to the client as quickly as it can consume them.
>Now I'm not sure anyone's actually done any experiments to optimize libpq or
>other drivers to stream data efficiently, so I'm not sure how much you would
>really lose in practice today.
My Pike drivers now support multiple simultaneous portals and
automatic streaming by presending overlapping Execute statements with
a dynamically adapted fetchlimit calculated per select as the query
progresses.
The only support still lacking is COPY.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
In this signature, the concluding three words `were left out'.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
