| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-27 07:33:17 | Re: Avoiding planning redundant backwards merges |
| Previous Message | Anton | 2007-10-27 04:26:21 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anton | 2007-10-27 08:53:30 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
| Previous Message | Pablo Alcaraz | 2007-10-27 05:14:21 | Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table |