From: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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 19:12:06 |
Message-ID: | C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF8044A24A1@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it in the unapplied patches queue.
The patch isn't ready for application, but someone can quickly implement it I'd expect.
- Luke
Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo
-----Original Message-----
From: Heikki Linnakangas [mailto:heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 05:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Anton
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-10-27 19:28:04 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-27 13:15:02 | Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table |