| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(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: | 2007-10-28 09:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1193562833.4242.670.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 17:48 -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> 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.
The part of the patch that didn't work for me was the nrels==1 bit. The
way it currently works there is only ever 0 or 2+ rels. The normal
Postgres code has to cater for the possibility of a non-empty parent
table, which seems to destroy the possibility of using this technique.
I agree its annoying and I have a way of doing this, but that's an 8.4
thing now.
Anybody think different?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nimesh Satam | 2007-10-28 15:22:53 | Append Cost in query planners |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-28 00:20:26 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |