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

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-27 22:30:48
Subject: Re: Another optimizer question
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2004-01-27 22:16:08
Subject: Re: Write cache

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group