Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-27 13:15:02
Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table
Previous:From: AntonDate: 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 RiggsDate: 2007-10-27 09:24:29
Subject: Re: pgsql: Allow an autovacuum worker to beinterrupted automatically when
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-10-27 08:53:45
Subject: Re: WAL archiving idle database

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group