Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-09 Thread Jim C. Nasby
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

Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-09 Thread Jim C. Nasby
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

Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-09 Thread Csaba Nagy
Well, I do have a use case for it. Context: We have data coming in from web requests, which must be fast, so we just insert them in temporary tables without any verification. Then they are periodically processed by a background task, but even that one will process just a chunk at a time to avoid

Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-08 Thread Tom Lane
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 data

Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:19:34PM -0600, Cristian Prieto wrote: > Maybe the first 1000 rows based in the primary index No, this is not a satisfactory answer, because 1. it's possible that there's no primary key at all, or 2. said index may not get used for the execution of the update. Maybe

Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-08 Thread Cristian Prieto
Maybe the first 1000 rows based in the primary index - Original Message - From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cristian Prieto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in

Re: [GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-08 Thread Tom Lane
"Cristian Prieto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would be any future support for limit in update/insert queries? so you = > could do something like > update table1 set col1=3Dvalue1 limit 1000; > would update just the first 1000 rows in the table. That seems like a spectacularly bad idea, consideri

[GENERAL] Support for Limit in Update, Insert...

2005-09-08 Thread Cristian Prieto
Would be any future support for limit in update/insert queries? so you could do something like   update table1 set col1=value1 limit 1000;   would update just the first 1000 rows in the table. I've been playing a little with the SPI and I get the SPI already has the support for limit the num