| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anton <anton200(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
| Date: | 2007-10-27 09:11:32 |
| Message-ID: | 472300C4.70800@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Anton wrote:
> I repost here my original question "Why it no uses indexes?" (on
> partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1), if you
> mean that you miss this discussion.
As I said back then:
The planner isn't smart enough to push the "ORDER BY ... LIMIT ..."
below the append node.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-10-27 09:24:29 | Re: pgsql: Allow an autovacuum worker to be interrupted automatically when |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-10-27 08:53:45 | Re: WAL archiving idle database |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-27 13:15:02 | Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table |
| Previous Message | Anton | 2007-10-27 08:53:30 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |