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

Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: 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 05:37:29
Message-ID: 8491.1193463449@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Anton <anton200(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I want ask about problem with partioned tables (it was discussed some
> time ago, see below). Is it fixed somehow in 8.2.5 ?

No.  The patch you mention never was considered at all, since it
consisted of a selective quote from Greenplum source code.  It would
not even compile in community Postgres, because it adds calls to half a
dozen Greenplum routines that we've never seen.  Not to mention that
the base of the diff is Greenplum proprietary code, so the patch itself
wouldn't even apply successfully.

As to whether it would work if we had the full story ... well, not
having the full story, I don't want to opine.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: AntonDate: 2007-10-27 08:53:30
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Previous:From: Pablo AlcarazDate: 2007-10-27 05:14:21
Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-10-27 07:33:17
Subject: Re: Avoiding planning redundant backwards merges
Previous:From: AntonDate: 2007-10-27 04:26:21
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

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