Re: Another optimizer question

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Dennis Haney <davh(at)diku(dot)dk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Another optimizer question
Date: 2004-01-27 22:19:03
Message-ID: 1075241942.13212.36.camel@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> As a more direct response, there *are* reasons for people to put ORDER
> BY in a subselect and expect it to be honored. The typical example
> that's been discussed several times in the archives is that you want to
> use an aggregate function that is sensitive to the ordering of its input

Not to mention our workaround for Max and min (ORDER BY LIMIT)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-01-27 22:30:48 Re: Another optimizer question
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2004-01-27 22:16:08 Re: Write cache