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

Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1

From: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,"Anton" <anton200(at)gmail(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1
Date: 2007-10-27 21:48:16
Message-ID: C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF8044A24A5@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Works great - plans no longer sort, but rather use indices as expected.  It's in use in Greenplum now.

It's a simple approach, should easily extend from gpdb to postgres. The patch is against gpdb so someone needs to 'port' it.

- Luke

Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Simon Riggs [mailto:simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
Sent:	Saturday, October 27, 2007 05:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Luke Lonergan
Cc:	Heikki Linnakangas; Anton; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Re: [PERFORM] partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1

On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:12 -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it
> in the unapplied patches queue.

I got the impression it was a suggestion rather than a tested patch,
forgive me if that was wrong.

Did the patch work? Do you have timings/different plan?

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Pablo AlcarazDate: 2007-10-27 22:31:18
Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-10-27 21:31:22
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1

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