Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Luke Lonergan
Subject Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Date
Msg-id C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF8044A24A1@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
List pgsql-performance

And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it in the unapplied patches queue.

The patch isn't ready for application, but someone can quickly implement it I'd expect.

- Luke

Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Heikki Linnakangas [mailto:heikki@enterprisedb.com]
Sent:   Saturday, October 27, 2007 05:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Anton
Cc:     pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject:        Re: [PERFORM] partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

Anton wrote:
> I repost here my original question "Why it no uses indexes?" (on
> partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1), if you
> mean that you miss this discussion.

As I said back then:

The planner isn't smart enough to push the "ORDER BY ... LIMIT ..."
below the append node.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1