| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2007-10-27 21:48:16 |
| Message-ID: | C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF8044A24A5@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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.
- Luke
Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Riggs [mailto:simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 05:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Luke Lonergan
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas; Anton; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:12 -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it
> in the unapplied patches queue.
I got the impression it was a suggestion rather than a tested patch,
forgive me if that was wrong.
Did the patch work? Do you have timings/different plan?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pablo Alcaraz | 2007-10-27 22:31:18 | Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-10-27 21:31:22 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |