Re: Generic Q about max(id) vs ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Alex Turner
Subject Re: Generic Q about max(id) vs ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1
Date
Msg-id 33c6269f0510241614k43306e45xcfbab656541b3c1e@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Generic Q about max(id) vs ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1  (Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>)
Responses Re: Generic Q about max(id) vs ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1 -- SOLVED  (felix@crowfix.com)
List pgsql-general
I believe based on semi-recent posts that MIN and MAX are now treated
as special cases in 8.1, and are synonymous with select id order by id
desc limit 1 etc..

Alex

On 10/24/05, Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> wrote:
> felix@crowfix.com writes:
>
> > However, in the process of investigating this, my boss found something
> > which we do not understand.  A table with a primary key 'id' takes 200
> > seconds to SELECT MAX(id), but is as close to instantaneous as you'd
> > want for SELECT ID ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1.  I understand why
> > count(*) has to traverse all records, but why does MAX have to?  This
> > table has about 750,000 rows, rather puny.
>
> As I understand it, because aggregates in PG are extensible (the query
> planner just knows it's calling some function), MAX isn't specially
> handled--the planner doesn't know it's equivalent to the other query.
>
> There has been some talk of special-casing this, but I'm not sure
> where it lead--you might check the archives.
>
> -Doug
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jamie Deppeler
Date:
Subject: Autogenerated backup of a password protected database
Next
From: felix@crowfix.com
Date:
Subject: Re: Generic Q about max(id) vs ORDER BY ID DESC LIMIT 1 -- SOLVED