On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:28:29PM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Except if you have an index on the column you're ordering by. Then the > > > server can really return the first row quickly. > > > > Quickly for sure... but I don't think 'without processing all the rows > that > > qualify'. > > Postgres will always try to do the smallest amount of work possible. > Putting a LIMIT in will cause the planner to pick a plan that returns an > appropriate number of rows quickly, sometimes it can be a very different > plan. > > > I think it will still process all the rows and return just one. > > How do you explain that when you run: > > SELECT 1/v FROM (VALUES (1),(0)) c(v); > > Without a limit you get a "division by zero" exception, and when you > have a limit of one row you get a result back. > You are correct, and repeating what I said in the first mail. Your query does not involve an ORDER BY (or other clauses), hence the first row that the executor encounters, satisfies what the query asked for. But if it had an ORDER BY you will again get the division ERROR. Above I was referring to the case where the planner chooses an Index access. Best regards, -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com 17° 29' 34.37"N, 78° 30' 59.76"E - Hyderabad 18° 32' 57.25"N, 73° 56' 25.42"E - Pune * 37° 47' 19.72"N, 122° 24' 1.69" W - San Francisco http://gurjeet.frihost.net Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
