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

Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

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 (view raw or flat)
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

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2007-10-27 19:28:04
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-27 13:15:02
Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table

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