Re: Incorrect behavior with CE and ORDER BY

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect behavior with CE and ORDER BY
Date: 2006-10-24 18:07:28
Message-ID: 453E5660.20608@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>> We have a problem with CE that I want to verify is either expected
>>>> behavior, a bug or something else :).
>>> Uh, what's your problem exactly? The example only seems to demonstrate
>>> that if you don't ask for a sort, you don't get one.
>> Sorry. The problem is, if I ask for an ORDER BY it scans all partitions
>> versus only scanning the partition that has the data in it.
>
> Huh, but that's not what the EXPLAIN ANALYZE you posted says ...
>

Sorry I realize the error of my ways. It isn't that it is scanning all
partitions, it is that it is scanning all of a single partition (subject
to the WHERE clause). That is correct behavior.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-24 18:07:29 Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8
Previous Message Gregory Maxwell 2006-10-24 17:56:45 Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8