| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adam Rich <adam(dot)r(at)sbcglobal(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: max() versus order/limit (WAS: High update |
| Date: | 2007-01-15 10:38:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20070115103809.GI7233@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Adam,
>
> This optimization would require teaching the planner to use an index for
> MAX/MIN when available. It seems like an OK thing to do to me.
This optimization already exists, albeit for queries that use a single
table.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2007-01-15 12:58:34 | Re: pg_trgm performance |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-01-15 10:35:36 | Re: max() versus order/limit (WAS: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS) |