> 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.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-27 13:15:02|
|Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table |
|Previous:||From: Anton||Date: 2007-10-27 08:53:30|
|Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-10-27 09:24:29|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Allow an autovacuum worker to beinterrupted automatically when|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-10-27 08:53:45|
|Subject: Re: WAL archiving idle database|