Re: Another optimizer question - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: Another optimizer question
Date
Msg-id 1075241942.13212.36.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Another optimizer question  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Another optimizer question
List pgsql-hackers
> As a more direct response, there *are* reasons for people to put ORDER
> BY in a subselect and expect it to be honored.  The typical example
> that's been discussed several times in the archives is that you want to
> use an aggregate function that is sensitive to the ordering of its input

Not to mention our workaround for Max and min (ORDER BY LIMIT)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: Re: Write cache
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Another optimizer question