elein wrote:
The new plperl returns sets by having
the function return an array.
This requires that the entire array be
built before anything is returned.
It seems to me that that does not scale
very well. The technique of RETURN NEXT;
scales much better.
Indeed.
For example, you maybe
posted mailed
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:18:28PM -0700, elein wrote:
The new plperl returns sets by having
the function return an array.
I think RETURN NEXT does the same thing anyway ... they just store
tuples in a Tuplestore and
Several years ago me and Teodor have proposed partial sort for
top-k ranking result. We have even submitted a very crude patch, but it was
rejected. We use partial sorting extensively in our external application
and found it's very useful. There are many papers recently published about
top-k
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:18:28PM -0700, elein wrote:
The new plperl returns sets by having
the function return an array.
I think RETURN NEXT does the same thing anyway ... they just store
tuples in a Tuplestore and then the whole thing is returned.
I'll try these in plperl when I get a chance, but there is still
a scalability problem.
There was some work done at UCB a while back (post-postgres)
to try to speed up queries by making the first n rows available
quickly. This is based on the googlish idea that people want
results fast and
The new plperl returns sets by having
the function return an array.
This requires that the entire array be
built before anything is returned.
It seems to me that that does not scale
very well. The technique of RETURN NEXT;
scales much better.
For example, you maybe selecting rows,
doing a
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:18:28PM -0700, elein wrote:
The new plperl returns sets by having
the function return an array.
This requires that the entire array be
built before anything is returned.
It seems to me that that does not scale
very well. The technique of RETURN NEXT;
scales
