Re: Optimize ORDER BY ... LIMIT

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimize ORDER BY ... LIMIT
Date: 2006-09-15 22:04:59
Message-ID: 87y7skokfo.fsf@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

> I don't know if this is the same thing you are talking about, but Oleg
> talked to me on the conference about "partial sort", which AFAICS it's
> about the same thing you are talking about. I think Teodor submitted a
> patch to implement it, which was rejected because of not being general
> enough.

Oof, you have a long memory. Oleg does reference such a thing in his 2002 post
that ended up resulting in the TODO item. I can't find the original patch but
I doubt any patch against 7.1 is going to be all that helpful in understanding
what to do today.

I'm also confused how he only saw a factor of 6 improvement in reading the top
100 out of a million. I would expect much better.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-09-15 22:13:25 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-09-15 21:55:08 Re: [HACKERS] Simplifying "standby mode"