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

Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "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 DESC LIMIT 1
Date: 2007-10-30 09:06:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:

> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> Sure - it's here:
> To clarify - we've fixed this in Greenplum db - the patch as submitted is
> (hopefully) a hint about how to fix it in Postgres, rather than a working
> patch... as its full of non-postgres functions and macros:

Oh, that was the problem with the original patch and I thought Luke had said
that was the problem which was fixed.

> cdbpathlocus_pull_above_projection

In particular this is the function I was hoping to see. Anyways as Tom pointed
out previously there's precedent in Postgres as well for subqueries so I'm
sure I'll be able to do it.

(But I'm still not entirely convinced putting the append member vars into the
eclasses would be wrong btw...)

  Gregory Stark
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: KetemaDate: 2007-10-30 12:18:57
Subject: Improving Query
Previous:From: rubenDate: 2007-10-30 08:20:24
Subject: High Availability and Load Balancing

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