On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:54:03 PM UTC+2, Michael Bayer wrote: > > > On 9/29/15 9:50 AM, Ralph Heinkel wrote: > > In short this looks like: > > SELECT val > FROM some_table > ORDER BY val > OFFSET 4 ROWS FETCH NEXT 4 ROWS ONLY; > > it's like OK we can add a LIMIT/OFFSET feature, but first! Let's send it > off to the Oracle department of "make this syntax as awkward and obtuse as > possible - OraTuse! (tm)" > > > +1 ;-) You are right, the syntax is really awkward - they should have just used something like Postgresql does, very concise, very easy to read. But hey - it's Oracle, it must be complicated to justify the price.
> and is so much faster than the nested approach that has been used so far (at > least on my system). > > > I am sure. > > OK, that was a bit too optimistic, the speed increase depends very much on the table/view I'm applying it to. There is some increase in speed, never a decrease. The real difference in speed that I believed (hoped) I saw seems to be related on our db load at the time when I measured it. So I think we have to collect experiences from different side whether or not it really makes a difference. But anyway, even though the syntax is slightly strange I prefer it much over the original approach which required to nest two select statements. Ralph -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
